True privacy on Graphene OS?

Tree_lace

So this is the kind of stuff that puts me off regarding privacy on google devices:

https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1adqpt1/complaint_filed_against_alphabets_plans_to/

Alphabets (aka Google) show their true colours when tapping into messages. Two questions comes to mind.

1. Is this the case for degoogled devices on the pixel 6/7/8 devices with Graphene/Calyx OS? if not, how is it possible to know for sure?

2. The newer pixel devices have 5-7 years(!) of guaranteed security updates apparently, but not sure whether I buy it. Why would they do this? what is their endgame here? 7 yrs of updates is quite a long time. On one side, the pixel phones are apparently the 'best' in terms of degoogling because of a 2 way lock-mechanism (from what I have understood) when using Graphene OS, but why would they make a phone to allow this in the first place? whatever security patch/gimmicks they create will eventually just allow to be uninstalled in favor for a hardcore privacy OS like Graphene just like that? and lets not forget, if anything google is probably violating privacy via backdoors more than ANY other compnay, but in the dark (imo) and not openly being exosed.

The whole 7 yrs of updates sounds sketchy, cant see how they gain from this in any way if most pixel fans (likely more tech savvy than your avg joe phone user) would get a pixel phone to enhance their privacy. Doesnt make sense

other8026

Tree_lace The newer pixel devices have 5-7 years(!) of guaranteed security updates apparently, but not sure whether I buy it. Why would they do this? what is their endgame here?

I don't work for Google, so I can only guess, but I'd say that their end game is to make money? They make money selling devices at the very least. Alphabet / Google already have their browser and their OS, but their hardware ventures haven't been as successful. It's a logical next step.

Tree_lace 7 yrs of updates is quite a long time.

Yes, but they have to compete in order to sell their devices. There's nothing suspicious about that.

Tree_lace On one side, the pixel phones are apparently the 'best' in terms of degoogling because of a 2 way lock-mechanism (from what I have understood) when using Graphene OS, but why would they make a phone to allow this in the first place?

Why not? Most "normal" people won't flash an alternate OS because they either don't care to or are too scared. It's a win-win situation for Alphabet because they're still selling phones. Also, consider the fact that GrapheneOS has made upstream contributions. Check out the issue tracker for AOSP sometime. The more people use Android and the more other companies build on Android, the better Android gets. Alphabet/Google benefit from this.

Tree_lace lets not forget, if anything google is probably violating privacy via backdoors more than ANY other compnay, but in the dark (imo) and not openly being exosed.

I'd suggest reading this post by a fellow mod: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/10150-not-your-average-why-pixel-thread/7

TheGodfather

Tree_lace

Pls edit your post to make it readable. Nobody wants to scroll 50 times to the right while reading your questions on a smartphone.

Phead

Tree_lace

I have no data on this but I would assume people buy new phones for their features - which, these days, probably comes down to camera and media editing. Maybe gaming. Apple has a trade-in program for year old devices. Google too. Who cares about updates? 7 years, 15 years - most devices are probably replaced by their upgraded siblings before 7 years have passed. Again, I have no data on this but I don't meet many people with even 5 year old devices.

Tree_lace [...] and lets not forget, if anything google is probably violating privacy via backdoors more than ANY other [...]

I sense some level of tin foil hat thinking there. Go ahead and dig through the AOSP code. It's open source. Many others did. No backdoor has been documented so far. Maybe you'll succeed.

I understand that it seems weird that a company such as Google (which is known for data collection) builds a priavcy friendly phone (well, after a few tweaks here and there, anyway). But as mentioned above the google OS on stock pixels is only based on the AOSP. It's not the same. All the bad stuff, if you will, stems from the closed source part - that's where the real Google lives, hungry for data. Graphene OS, however, is built upon the AOSP code. Which is open source. No backdoors.

Also, are you trolling?

raccoondad

Tree_lace

"cant see how they gain from this in any way if most pixel fans (likely more tech savvy than your avg joe phone user) would get a pixel phone to enhance their privacy."

Honestly, people don't like to be forced to buy a new phone once their old one goes end of life. So it makes sense to extend it

blackpill

other8026 I don't work for Google, so I can only guess, but I'd say that their end game is to make money? They make money selling devices at the very least. Alphabet / Google already have their browser and their OS, but their hardware ventures haven't been as successful. It's a logical next step.

They're a data company (their primary revenue model is data).

Tree_lace

TheGodfather how? cant find the edit

Themble

Phead All the bad stuff, if you will, stems from the closed source part - that's where the real Google lives, hungry for data.

And stock Google is still better than other devices where there comes additional bloatware on top of Google's apps.

Tree_lace

Phead So asking questions on a forum now is trolling? Personally, I have had my current phone for 5+ yrs and the only reason I have kept it so far is that the hardware is pretty robust. All apps have been working without any issues. Apart from the screen which has shattered a couple of times, never needed to take it for repair etc.

A titan company like google makes its revenue off data collection as others have stated here, very plausible that it 'sells' information to govts they see fit. Not sure why you think it's a conspiracy. All big corporations do.

ve3jlg

Phead I understand that it seems weird that a company such as Google (which is known for data collection) builds a privacy friendly phone

It is absolutely not weird at all nor unsupportive of Google's main biz: advertising.

Yes, Google needs to collect as much data about individuals as possible, to offer advertising that customers (foolishly) believe "works" and is worth their expenditure.

However, Google makes their billions by selling that advertising repeatedly. if they sold the profile they collected/built about people using their services they might only do so once.

Google's profile of each individual is also enhanced by being current: showing relevant advertising for that time and place e.g. restaurants of a specific type on a Google map at dinner hour in a specific part of town, for a specific person.

Google does care about privacy in these ways:

If the Google ecosystem was publicly identified as having major data leaks then people would tend to avoid Google services. They have to reliably keep data collected confidential to them, to maintain some kind of trust and to be able to resell time-limited access via advertising to many buyers repeatedly.
Many others are also trying to spy on Google's products (people). Google needs to limit competitors' access.
The Pixel was launched because Google was pissed that phone manufacturers were not shipping (security) updates after initial sale quickly enough or even at all. Google needed to establish a standard for others Like LG and Samsung to follow. By offering 5-7 years of updates they are continuing what they always wanted to happen.

Phead

Tree_lace So asking questions on a forum now is trolling

Of course not. The question seemed a bit provocative. Apologies, if you felt offended.

Tree_lace A titan company like google makes its revenue off data collection as others have stated here, very plausible that it 'sells' information to govts they see fit. Not sure why you think it's a conspiracy. All big corporations do.

True. But there is no evidence that Android has backdoors. Documented data collection is a totally different thing. By using the device you opt in to data collection (when using stock android). You can read all the legal stuff on their website. Google collects data but it's very well documented. A backdoor is a different thing - and illegal. Read the link in other8026 post if you think Google just hid it too well.

Tree_lace

Phead No worries mate. All praise to Graphene OS team for making the world a better place, truly. I just have a bad feeling about google & co, cant fully trust their intentions. But I guess I'll have the same feeling about any big tech company (Samung, Huawei, Apple etc...)

Thanks for your insights and suggestions, I will definately have a read

Blastoidea

It has always my understanding that the primary purpose and intent of GrapheneOS is neither to de-Google, nor to provide privacy.

Perhaps I have misunderstood.

raccoondad

Blastoidea GrapheneOS by itself is degoogled, with an optional google services sandboxed app you can install

[deleted]

Blastoidea yes, it's always been about security, but de-googling and wish for privacy is a nice add-on to have with it.

akc3n

Blastoidea It has always my understanding that the primary purpose and intent of GrapheneOS is neither to de-Google

There is nothing to "de-Google", because GrapheneOS is a hardened fork of AOSP, and since AOSP doesn't come with it in the first place... neither does GrapheneOS.

Blastoidea ... the primary purpose and intent of GrapheneOS... nor to provide privacy.

That isn't accurate at all. Please read https://grapheneos.org/features

GrapheneOS makes substantial improvements to both privacy and security through many carefully designed features built to function against real adversaries.

GrapheneOS is focused on substance rather than branding and marketing. It doesn't take the typical approach of piling on a bunch of insecure features depending on the adversaries not knowing about them and regressing actual privacy/security. It's a very technical project building privacy and security into the OS rather than including assorted unhelpful frills or bundling subjective third party apps choices.

jackFang

Tree_lace is that only google apps they train their AI models on? So having degoogled phone would help? I.e. not installing google apps at all :)

If you are really scared you can sacrifice android and IOs completely. There are alternative Linux distros (never tried them) for smartphone, they should give you ultimate privacy. Do note they are not as advanced

raccoondad

jackFang "is that only google apps they train their AI models on?", we don't know what they train their models on, just the information they collect.

Linux distros for smartphones are not secure, they don't offer 'ultimate privacy' and their security is insanely lacking.

They are also not compatible with Pixel devices...

TheGodfather

jackFang There are alternative Linux distros (never tried them) for smartphone, they should give you ultimate privacy.

No, they won't. They are a decade behind Android security and won't protect or enforce privacy in a meaningful way.

jackFang

raccoondad are we saying ubuntu is not secure? This is not a promotion post but ubuntu touch works with pixel 3a. This is just to say that yes pixel phones are supported

akc3n

jackFang pixel 3a.

The Pixel 3a and 3a XL listed on Ubuntu touch's website as being supported devices, have been EOL for quite some time now and are highly insecure.

are we saying ubuntu is not secure?

YES! That is a fact!

Phead

jackFang are we saying ubuntu is not secure?

I recommend this website.

raccoondad

jackFang

Ubuntu security lacks:

Memory protection (hardened malloc, memory tagging, etc.)
No boot protection (TPM 2.0 is trying to fix this, not on most smart phones)
No application permission management (anything the user running the program can do the device can do)
Root user access blocking

Desktops are 101% less secure than modern smart phones and operating systems for phones by these devs have not implemented very important security features.

TheGodfather

jackFang are we saying ubuntu is not secure?

Compared to Android and especially GrapheneOS, it's much less secure. It lacks:

mandatory strong sandboxing for apps, system processes, HALs and so on
permission management
W^X for apps
mandatory signing of apps
full-system MAC policies
many modern exploit mitigations
verified boot
attestation
hardware-backed isolated secrets management and authentication
strong user separation
privacy guarantees, because of infoleaks all over the place and lack of access management

That's basically true for any popular Linux desktop OS