4 ms·

No, them supporting e/OS corroborates the claim that their goal is not privacy or security.

fsflover 4mo ago
What do they need to support to convince you? Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company.
- strcat 4mo ago
  Fairphone doesn't design or make their smartphones. The devices are designed and made by a large ODM. It's entirely feasible to use a modern SoC with current generation security features and provide proper updates. Their ODM isn't doing it to cut costs. Fairphone quickly stops providing Linux kernel updates and has months of delay for Android userspace backports along with driver/firmware backports. The delay for yearly updates typically starts at a year and gets longer as devices get older and they've always skipped the quarterly updates. Using a modern SoC, properly configuring it, using proper signing keys (Fairphone has repeatedly used publicly available sample private keys) and providing proper updates is most of what's needed to meet the requirements. That's entirely doable by the few OEMs designing their devices in-house such as Motorola Mobility. Samsung and Google along with many of the ODMs making devices for Nothing, Fairphone, etc. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...
- handedness 4mo ago
  > What do they need to support to convince you? I know you're already aware of this because it's been provided to you before, but for the folks reading at home, here are the device requirements: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
  - fsflover 4mo ago
    You completely missed the context here. my comment was not about skipping the security features of GrapheneOS. The original parent comment was > No, them supporting e/OS corroborates the claim that their goal is not privacy or security. and I asked how they could be convinced about Fairphone's intentions given that the company is tiny and can't develop Pixel-level hardware.
    - handedness 4mo ago
      I didn't miss the context. You can't simultaneously claim (incorrectly) that they're incapable of shipping secure hardware while claiming that they intend to ship a secure and private device. (Maybe Fairphone 7 will be the one.) Even if that is is their intention, they're doing a good job keeping it a secret, as their site's main traffic drivers talk solely about environmental ethics and the climate. Several companies are shipping devices with worthwhile hardware security, and the standards are fairly well enumerated at the link I provided. If Fairphone's intention is to ship reasonably secure hardware then they're failing miserably at it. Same goes for their choice of OS. Again, that link wasn't for you. You've been told all this stuff for many years. It's for anyone who trips over the thread without already knowing the sheer tonnage of misleading and often downright factually false statements you continually dump in these threads.
      - fsflover 4mo ago
        Your accusations and personal attacks already go beyond any limits here. Please stop, as this is explicitly against the HN Guidelines. Especially, without clear links/evidence, as here. Anyone who trips over the thread should know this, too. Fairphone has a very clear goal of sustainability, which doesn't contradict cutting-edge security per se, but given how tiny the company is, makes it practically impossible. This doesn't mean they wouldn't add the security features if they could. You also like to falsely accuse all vendors producing alternative hardware to Google Pixels, like this one or, earlier, Librem 5 (which btw has the same problem with the small company and big goals).
        handedness 4mo ago
- handedness 4mo ago
  > Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company. Supporting all hardware required by fsflover is not feasible for a small project.

What do they need to support to convince you? Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company.

strcat 4mo ago
Fairphone doesn't design or make their smartphones. The devices are designed and made by a large ODM. It's entirely feasible to use a modern SoC with current generation security features and provide proper updates. Their ODM isn't doing it to cut costs. Fairphone quickly stops providing Linux kernel updates and has months of delay for Android userspace backports along with driver/firmware backports. The delay for yearly updates typically starts at a year and gets longer as devices get older and they've always skipped the quarterly updates. Using a modern SoC, properly configuring it, using proper signing keys (Fairphone has repeatedly used publicly available sample private keys) and providing proper updates is most of what's needed to meet the requirements. That's entirely doable by the few OEMs designing their devices in-house such as Motorola Mobility. Samsung and Google along with many of the ODMs making devices for Nothing, Fairphone, etc. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...
handedness 4mo ago
> What do they need to support to convince you? I know you're already aware of this because it's been provided to you before, but for the folks reading at home, here are the device requirements: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
- fsflover 4mo ago
  You completely missed the context here. my comment was not about skipping the security features of GrapheneOS. The original parent comment was > No, them supporting e/OS corroborates the claim that their goal is not privacy or security. and I asked how they could be convinced about Fairphone's intentions given that the company is tiny and can't develop Pixel-level hardware.
  - handedness 4mo ago
    I didn't miss the context. You can't simultaneously claim (incorrectly) that they're incapable of shipping secure hardware while claiming that they intend to ship a secure and private device. (Maybe Fairphone 7 will be the one.) Even if that is is their intention, they're doing a good job keeping it a secret, as their site's main traffic drivers talk solely about environmental ethics and the climate. Several companies are shipping devices with worthwhile hardware security, and the standards are fairly well enumerated at the link I provided. If Fairphone's intention is to ship reasonably secure hardware then they're failing miserably at it. Same goes for their choice of OS. Again, that link wasn't for you. You've been told all this stuff for many years. It's for anyone who trips over the thread without already knowing the sheer tonnage of misleading and often downright factually false statements you continually dump in these threads.
    - fsflover 4mo ago
      Your accusations and personal attacks already go beyond any limits here. Please stop, as this is explicitly against the HN Guidelines. Especially, without clear links/evidence, as here. Anyone who trips over the thread should know this, too. Fairphone has a very clear goal of sustainability, which doesn't contradict cutting-edge security per se, but given how tiny the company is, makes it practically impossible. This doesn't mean they wouldn't add the security features if they could. You also like to falsely accuse all vendors producing alternative hardware to Google Pixels, like this one or, earlier, Librem 5 (which btw has the same problem with the small company and big goals).
      - handedness 4mo ago
handedness 4mo ago
> Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company. Supporting all hardware required by fsflover is not feasible for a small project.