3 ms·

Because it’s convenient?

inigyou 3mo ago
I agree, it's very convenient to have a phone full of corporate malware. But I thought the point of GrapheneOS was to escape that. My corporate malware only runs on my secure card processor which sits in a pocket glued to my phone.
- stavros 3mo ago
  You're begging the question. The entire premise of this thread is "we should be able to pay without infesting our phone with corporate malware".
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Well yes, but attacking Graphene for that is attacking the wrong layer. If you want an open payments system the government has to mandate it, or you could take the low chance of success with the free market competition method.
    - stavros 3mo ago
      I read the very first message of the thread as "if you're going to regulate something, regulate that we should be able to pay without requiring Google", ie with Graphene and the like. I didn't read it as an attack on Graphene.
    - microtonal 3mo ago
      IMO the most annoying thing is that Google could solve this problem today by just adding the GrapheneOS signing keys to the whitelisted keys. Instead they decide to exclude GrapheneOS because security, while attesting phones that are still on Android 13 (multiple years without fixes for vulnerabilities that are not marked high/critical) and did not apply ASB patches for up to 12 months. A first step would be requiring Google to attest all devices that have a locked bootloader, verified boot, signed with non-public keys, and have a recent Android version and patch level. IMO they should also boot anything older than Android 16 and behind more than 1-2 ASBs, if security is the real reason to have Play Integrity remote attestation.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        POSIWID: the purpose of remote attestation is to force people to buy devices that pay Google license fees.
        gruez 3mo ago
        >that pay Google license fees Source? I thought it was free for OEMs?
        inigyou 3mo ago
        I think there's a fee and also a long list of requirements - such as you must not sell any phone without Google Play Store.
        gruez 3mo ago
        >I think there's a fee Seems to be only in the EU (because they're being forced to), and some other sources say google is offsetting the fee through revenue sharing back to the OEMs. In any case the original claim of "the purpose of remote attestation is to force people to buy devices that pay Google license fees" is questionable given that google had to be forced into charging money for it. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-android-licensing-terms https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-andro...
- miroljub 3mo ago
  The very moment it becomes possible to create a Google Pay alternative, there will be at least a dozen choices, some of them fully open source and privacy conserving. The only reason why we don’t have them is Google / Apple duopoly.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    It's possible right now, but you have to (as Google did) convince all banks, merchants, and card networks to let them use your system.
    - andrewshadura 3mo ago
      Merchants and card networks don't need to be convinced. From their PoV Google Pay device is just a regular payment card.
  - kelnos 3mo ago
    I seriously doubt that. There used to be more NFC payment apps, but most banks abandoned them since it was cheaper to just pay Google their cut through Google Pay. Or Wallet, or whatever the hell they renamed it to. Banks letting an open source project run transactions through them... that's... hilarious.
- microtonal 3mo ago
  But I thought the point of GrapheneOS was to escape that. I think the point of GrapheneOS is being as secure as possible first and within those parameters give people the choice how much of Google they want. They have implemented sandboxed Google Play Services for a reason. Many people need Play Services for practical reasons (e.g. because they need to run apps that require it), so let's then run it in the most secure/private way possible - make it a sandboxed app, allowing users to decide whether to install it or not and if they choose to, that they can assign/revoke permissions like any other Android app.

I agree, it's very convenient to have a phone full of corporate malware. But I thought the point of GrapheneOS was to escape that. My corporate malware only runs on my secure card processor which sits in a pocket glued to my phone.

stavros 3mo ago
You're begging the question. The entire premise of this thread is "we should be able to pay without infesting our phone with corporate malware".
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Well yes, but attacking Graphene for that is attacking the wrong layer. If you want an open payments system the government has to mandate it, or you could take the low chance of success with the free market competition method.
  - stavros 3mo ago
    I read the very first message of the thread as "if you're going to regulate something, regulate that we should be able to pay without requiring Google", ie with Graphene and the like. I didn't read it as an attack on Graphene.
  - microtonal 3mo ago
    IMO the most annoying thing is that Google could solve this problem today by just adding the GrapheneOS signing keys to the whitelisted keys. Instead they decide to exclude GrapheneOS because security, while attesting phones that are still on Android 13 (multiple years without fixes for vulnerabilities that are not marked high/critical) and did not apply ASB patches for up to 12 months. A first step would be requiring Google to attest all devices that have a locked bootloader, verified boot, signed with non-public keys, and have a recent Android version and patch level. IMO they should also boot anything older than Android 16 and behind more than 1-2 ASBs, if security is the real reason to have Play Integrity remote attestation.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      POSIWID: the purpose of remote attestation is to force people to buy devices that pay Google license fees.
      - gruez 3mo ago
        >that pay Google license fees Source? I thought it was free for OEMs?
        inigyou 3mo ago
        I think there's a fee and also a long list of requirements - such as you must not sell any phone without Google Play Store.
        gruez 3mo ago
        >I think there's a fee Seems to be only in the EU (because they're being forced to), and some other sources say google is offsetting the fee through revenue sharing back to the OEMs. In any case the original claim of "the purpose of remote attestation is to force people to buy devices that pay Google license fees" is questionable given that google had to be forced into charging money for it. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-android-licensing-terms https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-andro...
miroljub 3mo ago
The very moment it becomes possible to create a Google Pay alternative, there will be at least a dozen choices, some of them fully open source and privacy conserving. The only reason why we don’t have them is Google / Apple duopoly.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  It's possible right now, but you have to (as Google did) convince all banks, merchants, and card networks to let them use your system.
  - andrewshadura 3mo ago
    Merchants and card networks don't need to be convinced. From their PoV Google Pay device is just a regular payment card.
- kelnos 3mo ago
  I seriously doubt that. There used to be more NFC payment apps, but most banks abandoned them since it was cheaper to just pay Google their cut through Google Pay. Or Wallet, or whatever the hell they renamed it to. Banks letting an open source project run transactions through them... that's... hilarious.
microtonal 3mo ago
But I thought the point of GrapheneOS was to escape that. I think the point of GrapheneOS is being as secure as possible first and within those parameters give people the choice how much of Google they want. They have implemented sandboxed Google Play Services for a reason. Many people need Play Services for practical reasons (e.g. because they need to run apps that require it), so let's then run it in the most secure/private way possible - make it a sandboxed app, allowing users to decide whether to install it or not and if they choose to, that they can assign/revoke permissions like any other Android app.