4 ms·

Graphene is not a consumer brand and they do not intend to be a consumer brand. They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re e

by roughly 6mo ago

Graphene is not a consumer brand and they do not intend to be a consumer brand. They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. That will absolutely limit their scope and reach, but it also allows them to focus on the one thing they’re trying to do without making compromises. For contrast, Signal is a very secure messenger which also wants to be user friendly so as to get the largest user base they can, which leads to all kinds of compromises - everything that’s come out that looks like a vulnerability in Signal originates in some feature or capability added to make the product more user friendly. Graphene will not make those trades. Neither approach is de facto right - they spring from fundamentally different philosophies on how to maximize user safety, and both have been extremely successful in their missions, but you’ve gotta recognize what you’re looking at when you look at Graphene.

fwipsy 6mo ago
If they were doing that one thing, they would not have posted this. It's fine not to market to consumers, but this raises additional concerns about the founder's judgement. Someone else claimed that they deleted update signing keys for copperhead devices. That's seriously concerning if true; possibly bad enough to switch away from grapheneOS.
- joyous_limes 6mo ago
  [dead]
- microtonal 6mo ago
  He deleted the signing keys because it looked like the other owner of Copperhead OS wanted to make the signing keys available to government agencies and/or criminal organizations. He deleted the signing keys to protect their users against malicious updates, which is the right thing to do and should increase trust in him and the project. It's worth actually reading the linked post. Relevant segment: In 2018, matters between Micay and Donaldson came to a head over Donaldson’s desire to pursue business deals with criminal organizations, and his attempts to compromise the security of CopperheadOS, including by proposing license enforcement and remote updating systems that would allow third-parties to have access to users’ phones. As part of this process, Donaldson began to demand that Micay provide Donaldson with the “signing keys” - i.e. the credentials required to verify the authenticity of releases of CopperheadOS. Donaldson advised that, in order to secure certain new business, potential customers required access to the Keys. The keys had been in continuous use by Micay, in his personal capacity, since before the incorporation of Copperhead. However, more importantly, any party with the keys could mark malicious software as “authentic”, and thereby infiltrate devices using CopperheadOS. Micay was unwilling to participate in that kind of security breach. Since Donaldson had control over certain infrastructure for the open source project, he would be able to incorporate (or hire others to incorporate) the privacy-damaging features described above for all future releases of CopperheadOS. Micay therefore deleted the keys permanently and severed ties with Copperhead and Donaldson.
  - fwipsy 6mo ago
    Ah, thanks for setting me straight. That's reassuring. I think I would still have more respect and trust for GrapheneOS if they either didn't respond, or struck a more neutral tone; but that's more subjective.
  - joemazerino 6mo ago
    Is it that Donaldson wanted to pursue deals with criminals or he wanted to backdoor an OS for a defense contractor or that he was a government spy? From the article it seems like none. Claims need receipts or they are blind assertions. Me? I was a CopperheadOS user from the 2021 rebuild era before GrapheneOS existed in its state. All I've seen from GrapheneOS and Micay are claims without evidence and over-moderation of points they don't agree with.
- HybridStatAnim8 6mo ago
  GrapheneOS has never concealed this information, it has been publicly accessible on the GrapheneOS website for years, as an article describing the projects history. https://grapheneos.org/history/ https://grapheneos.org/history/ Deleting signing keys under threat of a hostile takeover is the responsible thing to do.
ryandrake 6mo ago
> They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. These things are not mutually exclusive: You can make a great technical product while being friendly. You can make a great technical product while not being friendly. You can make a compromised or flawed technical product while being friendly. You can make a compromised or flawed technical product while being unfriendly. This comes up pretty often in other HN threads, unrelated to Graphene. There's this weird personality type who insists that they aren't legally obligated to be friendly or nice or pleasant, therefore it's fine for them to be unfriendly or jerks or unpleasant.
- 1attice 6mo ago
  Actually, you can't make a great product if you've alienated your allies, because all successes are intrinsically social, from the iPhone to Python to even the processor itself. Going it alone is that nineties libertarian romanticism, a persistent self-destructive tendency that in present market conditions is unsustainable
  - HybridStatAnim8 6mo ago
    GrapheneOS does not consider those who attack them as allies.
  - DANmode 6mo ago
    What allies? Their allies seem securely in place. Their popularity and project support have never been stronger… and they’re partnering with a (popular!) hardware manufacturer. https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at-mwc-2026/ https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at... Respectfully, what are you talking about?
- abnercoimbre 6mo ago
  As a community organizer for systems programmers: welcome to my world! I've finally made some headway after a decade, helped by the mass layoff apocalypse. (Turns out social skills help you stay solvent.)
antonvs 6mo ago
[flagged]
- ipaddr 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - fsflover 6mo ago
    [flagged]
- joyous_limes 6mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- other8026 6mo ago
  All the stuff about members of our team not being stable is ridiculous and only works in favor of people or organizations that don't like us or want to damage GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS has multiple people helping out. Many developers as well as people who help out with non-development work. It's a big claim to say that the whole team is unstable. I'd suggest reading the article again. Considering the situation, the party about deleting the keys should be a good sign for anyone reading it. It shows that the project's leadership cares about doing things the right way. Members of the team are similarly dedicated to helping build and support an OS that improves people's privacy and device security, not to scam users by making a flashy product and rake in cash. Or, in Donaldson's case, work with shady companies and even possibly criminals. Privacy and security projects like GrapheneOS are important considering the political landscape these days. People really need to stop repeating inaccurate claims about us, like that we're criminals, unstable, crazy, etc.
  - antonvs 6mo ago
    [flagged]
orblivion 6mo ago
It's not just about being friendly. If they have a bubble around them of employees, true believers, and people just afraid of speaking out that chills free expression of criticism, the truth has trouble getting out, which hurts trust. Still a user though.
- HybridStatAnim8 6mo ago
  GrapheneOS is open to criticism about their project. The issue is criticism is often used as an excuse to conceal attacks.
  - orblivion 6mo ago
    Maybe true, but but the flip side is that sometimes what is called an attack is actually criticism. That's how it appears to a lot of us from the outside.
    - HybridStatAnim8 6mo ago
      GrapheneOS wants to post more positive things, rather than just defensive replies. But they have very little choice in the matter. If the inhumane levels of attacks werent happening, they would have more time to discuss future features, how they choose to approach features, etc. But ignoring the attacks only make it worse. The suggestions to ignore it, even if genuine, arent helpful.
      - orblivion 6mo ago
        I'm thinking about this a bit more. It may be the case that Daniel and the project are so under siege that they need to take a hostile attitude toward some of the people they interact with as a matter of self preservation. They may have no other option. But taking this posture while also being fair to all of the people around them (i.e. some people who aren't actually attacking them) may be difficult or even impossible. I can see this behavior in myself sometimes. I just don't have the energy to be fair. "F U". I wouldn't want to see friendly corporate slop either. I appreciate how down to nuts and bolts the communiques are on Mastodon and how deadly serious they take everything. That part of the communication style makes me trust them more. I think a good step in the right direction might be acknowledging that being defensive necessarily leads to erring on the side of assuming bad faith rather than good, which leads to some mis-judgements. So far you said that GrapheneOS is open to all criticisms, which (though I haven't followed the space very recently so my memory on specifics is hazy) just does not seem to match my interpretation. I think that if we were having this conversation on Twitter or Mastodon, Daniel would have blocked me by now (if he hadn't already blocked me years ago).
ekjhgkejhgk 6mo ago
[flagged]
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

by roughly 6mo ago

fwipsy 6mo ago

If they were doing that one thing, they would not have posted this. It's fine not to market to consumers, but this raises additional concerns about the founder's judgement. Someone else claimed that they deleted update signing keys for copperhead devices. That's seriously concerning if true; possibly bad enough to switch away from grapheneOS.

joyous_limes 6mo ago
[dead]
microtonal 6mo ago
He deleted the signing keys because it looked like the other owner of Copperhead OS wanted to make the signing keys available to government agencies and/or criminal organizations. He deleted the signing keys to protect their users against malicious updates, which is the right thing to do and should increase trust in him and the project. It's worth actually reading the linked post. Relevant segment: In 2018, matters between Micay and Donaldson came to a head over Donaldson’s desire to pursue business deals with criminal organizations, and his attempts to compromise the security of CopperheadOS, including by proposing license enforcement and remote updating systems that would allow third-parties to have access to users’ phones. As part of this process, Donaldson began to demand that Micay provide Donaldson with the “signing keys” - i.e. the credentials required to verify the authenticity of releases of CopperheadOS. Donaldson advised that, in order to secure certain new business, potential customers required access to the Keys. The keys had been in continuous use by Micay, in his personal capacity, since before the incorporation of Copperhead. However, more importantly, any party with the keys could mark malicious software as “authentic”, and thereby infiltrate devices using CopperheadOS. Micay was unwilling to participate in that kind of security breach. Since Donaldson had control over certain infrastructure for the open source project, he would be able to incorporate (or hire others to incorporate) the privacy-damaging features described above for all future releases of CopperheadOS. Micay therefore deleted the keys permanently and severed ties with Copperhead and Donaldson.
- fwipsy 6mo ago
  Ah, thanks for setting me straight. That's reassuring. I think I would still have more respect and trust for GrapheneOS if they either didn't respond, or struck a more neutral tone; but that's more subjective.
- joemazerino 6mo ago
  Is it that Donaldson wanted to pursue deals with criminals or he wanted to backdoor an OS for a defense contractor or that he was a government spy? From the article it seems like none. Claims need receipts or they are blind assertions. Me? I was a CopperheadOS user from the 2021 rebuild era before GrapheneOS existed in its state. All I've seen from GrapheneOS and Micay are claims without evidence and over-moderation of points they don't agree with.
HybridStatAnim8 6mo ago
GrapheneOS has never concealed this information, it has been publicly accessible on the GrapheneOS website for years, as an article describing the projects history. https://grapheneos.org/history/ https://grapheneos.org/history/ Deleting signing keys under threat of a hostile takeover is the responsible thing to do.

ryandrake 6mo ago

> They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. These things are not mutually exclusive: You can make a great technical product while being friendly. You can make a great technical product while not being friendly. You can make a compromised or flawed technical product while being friendly. You can make a compromised or flawed technical product while being unfriendly. This comes up pretty often in other HN threads, unrelated to Graphene. There's this weird personality type who insists that they aren't legally obligated to be friendly or nice or pleasant, therefore it's fine for them to be unfriendly or jerks or unpleasant.

1attice 6mo ago
Actually, you can't make a great product if you've alienated your allies, because all successes are intrinsically social, from the iPhone to Python to even the processor itself. Going it alone is that nineties libertarian romanticism, a persistent self-destructive tendency that in present market conditions is unsustainable
- HybridStatAnim8 6mo ago
  GrapheneOS does not consider those who attack them as allies.
- DANmode 6mo ago
  What allies? Their allies seem securely in place. Their popularity and project support have never been stronger… and they’re partnering with a (popular!) hardware manufacturer. https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at-mwc-2026/ https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at... Respectfully, what are you talking about?
abnercoimbre 6mo ago
As a community organizer for systems programmers: welcome to my world! I've finally made some headway after a decade, helped by the mass layoff apocalypse. (Turns out social skills help you stay solvent.)

antonvs 6mo ago

[flagged]

ipaddr 6mo ago
[flagged]
- fsflover 6mo ago
  [flagged]
joyous_limes 6mo ago
[dead]
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
other8026 6mo ago
All the stuff about members of our team not being stable is ridiculous and only works in favor of people or organizations that don't like us or want to damage GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS has multiple people helping out. Many developers as well as people who help out with non-development work. It's a big claim to say that the whole team is unstable. I'd suggest reading the article again. Considering the situation, the party about deleting the keys should be a good sign for anyone reading it. It shows that the project's leadership cares about doing things the right way. Members of the team are similarly dedicated to helping build and support an OS that improves people's privacy and device security, not to scam users by making a flashy product and rake in cash. Or, in Donaldson's case, work with shady companies and even possibly criminals. Privacy and security projects like GrapheneOS are important considering the political landscape these days. People really need to stop repeating inaccurate claims about us, like that we're criminals, unstable, crazy, etc.
- antonvs 6mo ago
  [flagged]

orblivion 6mo ago

It's not just about being friendly. If they have a bubble around them of employees, true believers, and people just afraid of speaking out that chills free expression of criticism, the truth has trouble getting out, which hurts trust. Still a user though.

HybridStatAnim8 6mo ago
GrapheneOS is open to criticism about their project. The issue is criticism is often used as an excuse to conceal attacks.
- orblivion 6mo ago
  Maybe true, but but the flip side is that sometimes what is called an attack is actually criticism. That's how it appears to a lot of us from the outside.
  - HybridStatAnim8 6mo ago
    GrapheneOS wants to post more positive things, rather than just defensive replies. But they have very little choice in the matter. If the inhumane levels of attacks werent happening, they would have more time to discuss future features, how they choose to approach features, etc. But ignoring the attacks only make it worse. The suggestions to ignore it, even if genuine, arent helpful.
    - orblivion 6mo ago
      I'm thinking about this a bit more. It may be the case that Daniel and the project are so under siege that they need to take a hostile attitude toward some of the people they interact with as a matter of self preservation. They may have no other option. But taking this posture while also being fair to all of the people around them (i.e. some people who aren't actually attacking them) may be difficult or even impossible. I can see this behavior in myself sometimes. I just don't have the energy to be fair. "F U". I wouldn't want to see friendly corporate slop either. I appreciate how down to nuts and bolts the communiques are on Mastodon and how deadly serious they take everything. That part of the communication style makes me trust them more. I think a good step in the right direction might be acknowledging that being defensive necessarily leads to erring on the side of assuming bad faith rather than good, which leads to some mis-judgements. So far you said that GrapheneOS is open to all criticisms, which (though I haven't followed the space very recently so my memory on specifics is hazy) just does not seem to match my interpretation. I think that if we were having this conversation on Twitter or Mastodon, Daniel would have blocked me by now (if he hadn't already blocked me years ago).

ekjhgkejhgk 6mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]