[patchtopic]

GrapheneOS says

"European authoritarians and their enablers in the media are misrepresenting GrapheneOS and even Pixel phones as if they're something for criminals. GrapheneOS is opposed to the mass surveillance police state these people want to impose on everyone"

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114784469162979608

State employees in their official capacity making inaccurate claims to media about GrapheneOS to smear it as being for criminals and as the users as largely being criminals is a state sponsored attack on the GrapheneOS project.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114813613250805804

[chasil]

I have never been to Spain, and I have only slight familiarity with issues in Barcelona and greater Catalonia, but this gives me pause:

"There’s a bitter irony here, too, as GrapheneOS recently pointed out in a tweet. The Spanish region of Catalonia was at the center of the massive Pegasus spyware scandal in 2019.

"Pegasus, a sophisticated surveillance tool sold exclusively to governments, was reportedly used to hack phones belonging to Members of the European Parliament and eavesdrop on their communications. Yet, police in this very region are now scrutinizing savvy Pixel and GrapheneOS users for hardening their devices against unlawful surveillance and other attack vectors."

[FirmwareBurner]

All this surveillance tech and law enforcement still don't know who the child abusers on the Epstein list/island were.

Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful.

Well not only surveillance, but also things like 'law', 'constitution', etc. applies only to the peasants.

[sitkack]

Oh they know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjPHq-Ez0nc

[FpUser]

>"Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful."

I think all are surveilled no matter the status. Acting upon it is a different matter of course.

[DANmode]

> applied to

> Acting upon it

Same same.

[rambojohnson]

they know, they don't want to tell us, so as to maintain said power structure.

[F0UKYOU-HN]

Of course they know....

[hluska]

Or maybe the democracies at the centre of the Epstein issue have constitutional protections limiting how dragnets get used.

[lawlessone]

what is five eyes?

[hluska]

Five Eyes is (or was, as its status is undetermined) an intelligence sharing agreement between the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Each nation has to abide by its own constitution and intelligence gathering limits. For example, the United States generally refrains from sharing intelligence on American citizens with other Five Eyes partners. Canada generally won’t share information on people who only hold Canadian citizenship, etc.

Couldn’t you have googled that?

[AnthonyMouse]

The poster knows the answer. It was a rhetorical question. Five Eyes is the thing countries with "constitutional protections" use to cheat their way around those protections. The US isn't allowed to spy on US citizens without a warrant but the other countries can do it and then provide the results to the US and vice versa.

And if they're going to be allowed to cheat then why hasn't the cheating done any good?

[wqaatwt]

Ever heard of the “Patriot” Act? Or was that sarcasm?

[ars]

Isn't the theory that this is because Clinton was one of them, and he was president at the time?

Even if Trump was one of them, he had no power at that time, so couldn't have done anything to stop (or bury) the surveillance, but Clinton could.

> Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful.

I suspect it's applied to them even more than the rest (ordinary people are not that interesting to surveil), the question actually is what is done with the surveillance afterward.

[1659447091]

> Clinton was one of them, and he was president at the time?

The mass surveillance state didn't really get going until George W.

Epstein had better surveillance on his activities than the government.

> Even if Trump was one of them, he had no power at that time, so couldn't have done anything to stop (or bury) the surveillance, but Clinton could.

Who was president at the time Epstein told a reporter he had blackmail material on rich & powerful, later was arrested (and his blackmail material collected from his properties), and finally placed in a facility that had trouble following standard prison procedures while awaiting trial?

[FirmwareBurner]

>(and his blackmail material collected from his properties)

I'm betting those weren't the only copies of the blackmail material. What are the odds Mossad and other intelligence agencies also have them?

[johnisgood]

And at the same time:

> GrapheneOS is not immune to exploitation, but the fearmongering done in these ongoing attacks on it is very clearly fabricated. They feel threatened enough by GrapheneOS to engage in coordinated attempts at convincing people that it's unable to protect their privacy and security.

So... they (cops and friends) are saying that GrapheneOS is for criminals, AND that it does not work at protecting anyone's privacy and is not for security. Amazing.

See: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114784553445461948 and the rest.

[kspacewalk2]

Fridges are for criminals too. The very good ones can keep the severed body parts cold for longer, thus preventing spoilage and reports of foul odours from downstairs neighbours. Will Frigidaire and Bosch stop selling this criminal technology to criminals?

[TheNewsIsHere]

I think the best way to prevent the sale of crime fridges to criminals would be to have national governments integrate the entirety of data that each nation has, from every level, on every citizen. Then we can create an API which market participants like Frigidaire and Bosch can use to query whether a purchase should be permitted based on the purchaser.

/s, if not obvious. Strange times.

[throwing_away]

I think all reasonable citizens could agree that a simple licensure for fridge ownership is for the best.

Besides, we can use the extra license taxes from people with multiple fridges to raise funds for the schools.

You don't hate the children, do you?

[johnisgood]

Exactly, and I hope we keep track of all fridge purchases with biometrics from customers (and as thus, should not be able to order from online). That better be hooked up to an API that the cops can query at any time.

[harvey9]

I bought a used fridge and flashed it with a custom ROM

[sharperguy]

A better analogy would be a balaclava. Lots of legitimate uses but it's uncommon to see people wearing them day to day and is very popular with criminals. But we don't imagine we could ban balaclavas to prevent crime.

[fifticon]

It depends on what you mean by 'ban'. In the country where I live (Denmark), they are very much banned, unless you can demonstrate your legitimate current use case for them. In particular, you are not allowed to wear them in public places where people gather or gather in groups. And 'beating up cops anonymously' is not an approved use case :-) The rule as I understand it, also covers [sic] extreme religious dress rules for women.

Here is the relevant section from our current laws: https://danskelove.dk/straffeloven/134b

[robertlagrant]

I used to wear one as a kid in the UK in the winter. They weren't invented for crime.

[olyjohn]

I wear one when I ride my motorcycle. Keeps my neck warm, and keeps the cold air off my face. And helps keep the dust off my face when I'm off road. And adds an extra layer of protection. They are also nice when you borrow someone else's helmet. The GoKart places near me give them out to help keep rental helmets from getting nasty.

[Y_Y]

> They weren't invented for crime.

Not literally, but there was some criminally bad warfare going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Balaclava

[harimau777]

Are protests considered a legitimate use? If not, then that seems pretty problematic.

[justacrow]

In Sweden at leasts, balaclavas and other wearables "preventing identification" is specifically illegal _at_ protests. From what I remember the danish case is similar.

[Wistar]

I wear one for taking photos of reflective objects, particularly car interiors. Sure minimizes retouching my stupid face out of reflections. Black cloth gloves, too.

[thenthenthen]

Gathering in groups in public? Thats wild, thats been banned since many years in many Dutch major cities. (“samenscholingsverbod”)

[ipaddr]

Can you wear one for fashion?

[encom]

No.

https://politi.dk/lov-og-information/tildaekningsforbud

(Trigger warning: danish)

[saaaaaam]

Actually, the Irish government considered exactly that! I'm not sure if they moved forward with it though.

And Southend in England tried to do the same (but failed...)

[Spooky23]

Well, in the United States, they are getting associated with the secret police.

[aredox]

But if the police asks you to remove your balaclava, you can only do so.

[johnisgood]

UK should have an answer to that (see: knives). :D

They really are absurd.

[Arch-TK]

The local police forces can start offering a service where they will cause a controlled leak of the refrigerant in your fridge to reduce its efficiency therefore making it less useful for refrigerating body parts.

https://kentandmedwayvru.co.uk/project/pointless/

[johnisgood]

I like the URL, "pointless". :D

I wonder if they are going to do anything about at least a thousand number of other items that may be used to cause bodily harm to a person. What about something related, such as forks?! Bags?

[paulryanrogers]

Can I take a moment to say how jealous I am that the UK's mass attack problem is largely about knives and not guns?

Here in the land of more-guns-than-humans it feels so much more bleak.

[graemep]

Even better, the US has a higher knife murder rate than the UK does.

On the other hand IIRC it has a lower rate of at least some types of violent assault.

One possible explanation is the healthcare system - fast treatment makes a big difference to the chances of surviving an attack (and are one reason murder rates have fallen over the years, and why developed countries have much lower murder rates). Does anything in the US system delay treatment significantly?

[kortilla]

No, emergency rooms will quickly fix immediate threats to life long before any of the insurance crap enters the conversation.

[DrScientist]

Back to the parental comment - it's been decided there isn't really a good reason to have most guns and so they are strictly controlled - I mean what's the legit reason for having an assault rifle?

Now if the government thinks there isn't really a good reason to have a phone they can't hack ( because they are the good guys right.... and in theory need court orders etc - so there is legal oversight ) then they will see such phones in the same light and consider banning.

This is at the core of the argument - and why governments ask for a special backdoor - as they accept a generally secure phone ( to stop your neighbour snooping ) is a good thing, but they are used to being able to tap phones and open letters if a judge gives them permission.

Obviously the ironic thing is most phones probably already do have special backdoors - but only for the country where the makers reside - and that countries government doesn't want other governments to know or have acccess.

And in the case of fridges - there is no argument there that they aren't legit reasons to own.

In the case of knives - zombie knives don't really have legit use, whereas kitchen knives do.

[t-3]

> I mean what's the legit reason for having an assault rifle?

If the government is allowed to have them, the people should be allowed to have them. Anything else would be inviting tyranny, as has been demonstrated ad nauseam by pretty much every government ever.

[ARandomerDude]

“Give me liberty or give me death.”

The ultimate point of gun ownership isn’t sporting or even self defense, though they are useful for both. The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical, we can do something about it.

Some people may not like that today but if you go back and read what people wrote circa 1775 and forward, this is the clear rationale.

[subscribed]

Zombie knives yeah, but you can get into serious trouble for the multitool with locking blade if you forgot to take it our from your backpack after a camping trip.

This is very much absurd.

[fifticon]

I can think of a country where they should probably ban windows, given how many people fall out of them.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> I mean what's the legit reason for having an assault rifle?

If I understand the proponents correctly: Ostensibly it is to defend one's property and people from a tyrannical government.

Just for an exercise, let's say you believe that. And let's say that day is here. The tyrannical government has arrived and has necessitated your use of assault rifles.

The people you're shooting, what are they wearing? They're almost certainly wearing uniforms; police and/or military.

From the proponents' standpoint, the reason to have assault rifles is to kill police and soldiers.

[miki123211]

My unpopular European opinion is that mass shootings are a cultural problem, not an "access to guns" problem.

Cars (especially trucks) can help you achieve similar aims, and are much harder to restrict.

[johnisgood]

Yeah, you may want to check https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44665755.

[johnisgood]

Yeah, but knives have a wide range of use, whereas guns do not.

You cannot buy a kitchen knife because people MAY use it cause harm.

It is like forbidding the use of roads because it MAY be used to <insert illegal activity here>. Uses (usage?) of roads are even more broad than uses of knives.

I think it is easier to argue in favor of knives (or against the prohibition of ... of knives) than guns, for this reason alone.

[bradleyy]

According to the CDC, guns are used to prevent at least 500,000 violent acts per year in the USA.

Why is "wide range of use" being used as the metric rather than "societal good"?

While there are downsides, there's more to it.

[olddustytrail]

> You cannot buy a kitchen knife because people MAY use it cause harm.

Yes I can. I have knives I bought recently in my kitchen.

How could you possibly believe that people in the UK can't buy knives? Do you realise how foolish that sounds?

[DrScientist]

You can buy a kitchen knife - just not if you are under age. Not it's perfectly legal for an adult to buy one for a budding cook - all the age ban does is put a 'responsible' adult in the loop.

You also can't carry one in public without reasonable cause - which in the end is decided by a judge.

[BirAdam]

A gun can stop an attacker whether human, ursine, or large feline.

A gun can be used for recreational shooting.

A gun can just be an historical collectors' piece.

A gun can be used in researching bullet proof vests and other equipment for a startup looking to sell to law enforcement/military.

There are many reasons for gun ownership. Ultimately, the reason should be that the individual is free to do as he/she chooses so long as he/she doesn't initiate a violent interaction.

The most often cited reason for banning firearms is the prevention of school shootings. For some reason, everyone is focused on the gun and not the fact that students wish to do violence at schools. What is it about the modern educational system that students wish to perpetrate violence in the schools to other students and teachers? Why isn't the mental health of the American youth at the center of this conversation?

[dessimus]

Don't forget about range tops: they are used for cooking, and what is "cooked"? Methamphetamines. When will the police stop Big Appliance! /s

[deaddodo]

The base purpose of a range top is cooking.

The base purpose of a gun is shooting things, generally living breathing ones.

I could kill a guy with a stick, a rock, a frying pan, a blanket, etc…pretty much most things; however, none of those things exist expressly for that purpose.

Simple concept, huh?

[voxic11]

My guns are made for hunting, are your saying they should be exempted from this discussion (are you only talking about handguns and automatic rifles)?

[deaddodo]

> The base purpose of a gun is shooting things, generally living breathing ones.

Sounds like your hunting rifle still qualifies.

[johnisgood]

That is what I have been trying to say, too.

[t_mahmood]

It's like my bank's application, your mobile with all the latest security update is prohibited, because the bootloader is unlocked. But your 6-year-old mobile that received its last security update 3/4 years ago is fine!

[qualeed]

I think people are misinterpreting your comment? Or I am.

What I think you are saying is:

The police are arguing both sides (in typical fashion). On one side, the police say that GrapheneOS is for criminals because of its privacy, etc. However the police are also trying to convince people that GrapheneOS is not private or secure, in an attempt to sway people from using it.

[johnisgood]

Yes, the police are arguing both sides, according to what I have read[1], and that they are not doing it in English but in other languages, e.g. Swedish. I am not sure why I am getting down-voted though.

[1] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114784488424006190 and so forth.

[qualeed]

>I am not sure why I am getting down-voted though.

My guess is the ambiguous use of "they", interpreting "they" as GrapheneOS instead of the police.

That makes it seem like you are criticizing GrapheneOS rather than the police.

[johnisgood]

I edited my comment. I thought it was obvious because it was the police claiming the former, and connected the two with an "AND". I was not criticizing GrapheneOS. Thanks!

[antonvs]

It was obvious, people just have terrible reading comprehension, and they also don't read to the end of a comment if something near the beginning triggers them.

[hluska]

This whole thing is quite the stretch. Someone who clearly has no idea what they’re talking about acted like a know it all on a forum. I don’t see how that’s evidence of a coordinated attack. Police saying dumb things about security tech is nothing new either nor is it a smoking gun.

Occam’s razor applies even when we want to believe a cool story.

[giantg2]

This is basically the ploy with many secure phones - say it's for criminals but actually have a backdoor for law enforcement. I wonder if there's some exploit on the Pixel or Graphene that law enforcement is now aware of.

[NoGravitas]

> “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” - Umberto Eco, Ur-Fascism

[reverendsteveii]

well if it doesn't work for protecting your data it doesn't work for protecting criminals' data as well, right? or is this a lot less about making rational sense and a lot more about manufacturing consent to violate our rights?

[benreesman]

Knowing my chosen configuration of phone stymies law enforcement overreach enough that criminals use same one? I chose wisely.

Cops think I did something wrong? Show up at my house with a warrant.

There are all kinds of ways that its easy to tell if someone is acting like a criminal, like trying to get and serve a warrant for their arrest.

Can't get a warrant without a warrantless wiretap? Fuck off then.

[PicassoCTs]

So, can i be the voice of reason here? The Panopticon is unavoidable! Everyone who has a spark of self-preservation in himself, knows it already. Technology has given the individual insane powers to take down state-level actors (drones in shipping lanes) and soon the whole planet(mirror life etc.). We can no longer afford privacy, as sad as this is.

Privacy was a luxury we had, while we could bribe the better angels of our nature with the surplus of the past and while technology was something, that did not scale.

Now a terrorist could take a army of tanks while besieging a city. All the other justifications for a Panopticon are flimsy, but the fact that technology - our savior from savagery, has turned around and bit the hand it was supposed to feed, justifies the thing.

[s_dev]

Basically the same old argument that Linux is used by black hat hackers.

It probably is but it's focus on security and privacy makes that so not that it's designed with nefarious purposes in mind. To us this is obvious but to lay people the nuance is lost.

[KingOfCoders]

"being criminals is a state sponsored attack on the GrapheneOS project."

Yes, I know, age of hyperbole, but a state sponsored attack on the project is mass arrests, blocking of funds etc.

Graphene does their PR, the police does their PR. Both have different views on the world.

[Forgeties79]

That's a very high bar for "state sponsored attack." I'd say the various internet ID verification laws being rolled out qualify as a state sponsored attack on our privacy/individual rights writ large.

[KingOfCoders]

And that's a very low bar for "state sponsored attack". Essentially everything you disagree with that the state does is a "state sponsored attack." This muddies the waters and when there is a "state sponsored attack" on a group of people, everyone is numb and we're out of words.

[Forgeties79]

“Attack” doesn’t exclusively mean physical assault/restraining people. It’s called a “DDoS attack” after all. You’re creating a strict and narrow definition that most of the world does not subscribe to.

If I say “stop attacking me” during a heated argument no one thinks you’re physically assaulting me. That would be ridiculous.