this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
66 points (72.9% liked)
Privacy
43368 readers
396 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In my opinion both the evident ego of of the project lead as well as his naivety (tethering the project to Google) are huge red flags despite any assumed technical superiority.
They chose Google because they are the only major OEM to allow you to relock the bootloader after installing a custom ROM. Samsung, Motarola, Huawei, Xiaomi etc all don't.
In addition to this, they are working with an OEM to produce their own Graphene phones. It sounds like they've made significant progress on that front so I'm hopeful.
Pretty sure calyx relocks the bootloader on moto phones.
They're literally working with a manufacturer to make non-google phones. Tethered to google is a wild mischaracterization.
No it's not. This is a recent development that has not yet actually come to fruition. It may exist in 2026.
Before that GrapheneOS dismissed any idea of targeting other phones than the ones build by one of the most anti-privacy companies on earth, that seeks to consolidate control of Android.
This isn’t true, they’ve supported other devices in the past. They’ve been Pixel-focused for the security features that other manufacturers haven’t offered
Yes, before Google made phone on it's own they supported some Nexus devices (google-partnered) and the Samsung Galaxy S4.
Litteraly saya on the website the requirements that a phone has to meet. Go make the phone that meets them instead of only complaining.
I don't need a phone, GrapheneOS needs one now that Google is trying to force them out. I wonder if their new phone will actually meet all the requirements, if it comes out.
As for complaining, GrapheneOS is the one removed about other Android versions existing since forever. Now, they 've started making unsubstantiated claims of them attacking them somehow.
I think if it does not meet the requierments then they wont support new phones at all, but who knows
GrapheneOs is calling them out for their lack of security. Like this one: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private
i think this is a good thing, users should be aware of it. And they should fix it.
I wish someone would find flaws in grapheneOs, and complain so thex can fix it too. Instead of complaining about the personality of one of the directors.
No GrapheneOS is not just calling them out on lack of security.
It's apparently from their discord, so it took me a while to find it again.
It's not about the personality of it's directors, it's about it's effect on the (alternative) Android ecosystem as a whole, which is not just about security but also privacy and user control.
Even with regards to security, their choice of limiting devices apparently makes their users targets for extra scrutiny and harassment. That does have actual implications for people whose threat model includes authorities unless they already are guaranteed to be targets.
thank you, i think i saw that somwhere before. is it really true that the haressment is made up? like i honestly dont know
and does it really has an impact on the eco system? i never really thought abou it..
but i think it is also for privacy top. user control not tho
And i guess fair point that this is a security flaw considering the phone users beeing targeted.. But like i still kinda think hardware backed security is important and also very crucial is, that the more devices they supporty the less recourses they have.. I think considering how long it is since pixel 10 released and it is still not supported, would make me guess that they dont have like any free time really to do it at all ^^
and like there are also no relevant projects i think that fork it to other devices, so i dont know, i mean somebody could start doing that but i guess that shows how hard it is to do
The one making the claims should provide the evidence.
Yes, it pushes for a Google monopoly in hardware, it creates a false narrative that there is no difference in privacy and/or security between alternative Android versions and ones by vendors. This further entrenches Google's control of Android as it limits the options for Android users.
I do believe Google has taken decisions that forced them to look for a new OEM, I am not sure if does affect the Pixel 10.