Using 'mainstream' apps on Graphene still worth it for privacy?

cyberpunkspunk

I am moving from iOS to Graphene as my daily phone but have concluded that I will probably still keep apps such as Google Maps, Gmail, Facebook etc for work and family reasons.

That being said, I am moving to Graphene to reduce the amount that these apps spy on me and am hoping to use as many F-Droid applications as possible. I am just curious if using these Big Tech apps will sully the privacy on my Graphene and make the whole endeavour pointless.

Shortly put: will using a few Big Tech apps on my Graphene make the reason for using the OS null and void or is it still marginally better than iOS?

[deleted]

cyberpunkspunk If this is how you think about it, then sorry to disappoint you. Switching to Android will not make you more private or secure than using iOS and the same can be said about GOS if you intend to keep walking down the same path. Sure, there are many security improvements that GOS brings, but there are just too many things where you could go wrong and using privacy intrusive apps is just one of them. You will also notice that even if you use them, your experience might not be as polished as it currently is. Okay, the mass surveillance report will say you got spotted for arguments sake on 30℅ fewer occasions, but you got spotted all the same and the track of your online activity can be clearly established. To achieve decent privacy you must move off the well trodden path and always keep in check that everything you do is off their checklist. Sorry if this too general. Switching to GOS is a great first step. But it doesn't end there. You need to constantly educate yourself on what privacy implications your actions have. In any case, good luck with improving your (online) mobile experience.

de0u

cyberpunkspunk I think if you use Google Maps a lot then Google will frequently know where you are. If you use Gmail (on your phone or not), Google's classification algorithms can read your mail. Likewise, if you use Facebook (on your phone or not) the usage feeds into their profile of you.

But the suggestions [deleted] and Phead make are good: you can try out alternatives, at least to Google Maps, and see if it's possible to gradually adjust your "business model" over time.

matchboxbananasynergy

cyberpunkspunk Hi there. You've already received a lot of answers (a lot of which I don't fully agree with), but I thought I would give my opinion as well.

The answer, in my opinion, is yes. It is worth it to use GrapheneOS no matter what apps you're using. In the vast majority of cases, it's going to be the most secure environment in which to run apps, and the one that gives you the most control as well.

The goal of GrapheneOS isn't to avoid Google or "Big Tech" apps, although people can use it for that, and that's completely fine. The actual goal of GrapheneOS is to provide an OS with substantial privacy and security benefits no matter what you're running.

I would recommend having a read through https://grapheneos.org/features if you haven't already to get an idea of what GrapheneOS provides over AOSP. For me, a major appeal to GrapheneOS is that one can use it in various ways. They can use it the apps they already use, and the usability is there; the apps keep working and great care has been put into making sure that continues to be the case. Others choose to use switching to GrapheneOS as a chance to change everything they use, and that's fine too, but one doesn't have to; only you know what's best for your situation.

User2288

cyberpunkspunk I am just curious if using these Big Tech apps will sully the privacy on my Graphene and make the whole endeavour pointless.

Shortly put: will using a few Big Tech apps on my Graphene make the reason for using the OS null and void or is it still marginally better than iOS?

You will still benefit from G-OS and you can still use those apps. You can "adjust" your usage a little bit so that you compromise yourself less.

G-OS benefits:

no hidden backdoor access to your phone by google or apple
you can "trust" your system.
protection from supl and gps server snooping
protection from connection and time server snooping
no root access to google play (play can be installed and remains almost totally blind to your data) A huge deal!
Important extra permission controls (network, sensor, storage scopes)
can use privacy invading apps much more privately than possible on a regular phone.
Better overall security
more...

Google Maps:
You can use google maps for sure. If you want to use it more privately then its best to install it in a separate profile with a dedicated always on vpn. Don't log into it, and don't let it discover your exact place of residence. That way you can be very anonymous with it. Also other maps do a good job too for navigation and they offer better offline experience.

Gmail:
Gmail is pretty revealing. But if switching is not an option for you then just make sure it doesn't see your ip (always use vpn). Also remember, swtiching "is" an option for you ;).

Facebook:
Don't let it see your location or ip address if possible. Use in separate profile.

cyberpunkspunk

[deleted] I have concluded that completely cutting off from mainstream apps, at least at this stage in my life and the responsibilities I have, would be imprudent but I eventually hope to wean myself. I dont mind if its not perfect but as long as there is some reduction in their capabilities with GOS then that is enough of an answer

[deleted]

cyberpunkspunk Another thing to consider is you could use a separate user profile for your big tech apps, then have your other stuff in your main profile or another user profile as well, since that effectively cuts it off from anything outside that user profile. IMO another benefit of this is if you keep those apps in second profile you can be sure they aren't running until you have fired up that profile, and you can be sure they do stop running after you end session on that profile or reboot. You can even activate the option to show notifications on other profiles and it will tell you if you get a notification in your big tech profile even if you're working in another one.

Phead

I would suggest to use a second profile for the evil kind of apps, as qr1 suggested. Apart from the benefits qr1 mentioned you could also see it as a your first steps to move away from big tech apps. See the second profile as a barrier which makes you think about the use of the evil apps and might eventually seduce you to try FOSS alternatives or privacy oriented services instead. Maybe you realize the sickening degree to which you are depending on those apps and feel the need to change that. You switched to GOS, so the seed is planted. Let it grow

zoe

Even without using Google maps they will know your location if you run Google services framework in the background, like normal Android phones do. So that is the first thing to get rid of and a good reason to run GOS. Second thing is to avoid all mainstream applications that have Google or other tracking code embedded into them as libraries. Use an app like App Manager to scan other apps for trackers. Third thing is to avoid Google web sites and replace them by alternatives; such as, other Search, other Maps, etc. What you cannot avoid is the fact that around 70% of all web sites include code from Google. You can try to block such code through an Adblocker like uBlock Origin, though.

Equal2024

zoe

Even without using Google maps they will know your location if you run Google services framework in the background, like normal Android phones do.

How does Google Services Framework accomplish this? If you don't give these apps access to your Location via permissions on GrapheneOS, they would need to determine your location indirectly. The minimal way to run Google Play, Google Play Services, and Google Services Framework is with only the Network permission. All Location requests to GSF from other apps like Uber are re-routed to GrapheneOS's method of determining location.

One method of obtaining the general location I can think of is using geographical location based on the Public IP Address (which ranges from fairly accurate to incredibly inaccurate), or similar with mobile data.

Eirikr70

I would rather say that GrapheneOS is just an OS. You can use it as you wish and yes, the architecture of the OS and the way it manages apps will make your experience (a bit) more privacy friendly. You might go a step further later ... or not.
If I may ask anyway, what makes Google Maps so necessary for you ?

Phead

matchboxbananasynergy The goal of GrapheneOS isn't to avoid Google or "Big Tech" apps, although people can use it for that, and that's completely fine. The actual goal of GrapheneOS is to provide an OS with substantial privacy and security benefits no matter what you're running

When I switched to GrapheneOS I found that it was comparable to having a fruitful discussion with someone else: It offered me a different perspective, a new angle. While not forcing me to abandon big tech, it made me at least think about it. When I installed GOS on my phone and chose it as my main OS I would have to actively install Google Apps and all the other stuff by hand. Doing it by hand made me do it consciously and as such made me rethink.

That's why google pays gazillion of dollars to Mozilla and others, to be the default search engine. Nobody asks questions, nobody thinks about it (not literally nobody, but the majority of users).

I've never installed more than a few apps and already knew about google and all the other stuff. Am I naive enough to believe google and Microsoft and apple and all the other big tech companies spy on me personally? Hardly, I'm not that interesting. But I like being in control, illusion or not. I prefer to choose when and what to share with them over doing it as default. GrapheneOS was not made to avoid big tech apps but it makes it easier and keeps me in control of doing so and I am very grateful for that.

Pacienco

cyberpunkspunk

As posted above, GrapheneOS has many security and privacy enhancements that improve your control over what applications you install can access and do. From a low level https://grapheneos.org/features#improved-sandboxing and usability improvements for strong isolation features like https://grapheneos.org/features#notification-forwarding and https://grapheneos.org/features#sandboxed-google-play all the way to many user level tools that put agency and power in your own hands like https://grapheneos.org/features#network-permission-toggle, https://grapheneos.org/features#sensors-permission-toggle and https://grapheneos.org/features#storage-scopes.

As far as I'm aware some of these (sensors for example at least per iOS 15 https://www.mysk.blog/2021/10/24/accelerometer-ios/) go beyond what is available on iOS but the permission story on iOS was historically better than stock Android. The two platforms seem much, much closer nowadays due to improvements in Android.

It is still possible to sabotage your privacy with a few apps despite switching to a leading privacy/security-focused OS like GrapheneOS. I think one of the important things about having a community around GrapheneOS is figuring out strong ways to differentiate privacy-respecting apps and developers from dangerous ones. An example is what you're trying to do with F-Droid. I think it is important to keep in mind that:

mainstream does not mean privacy-invading,
from a large tech corporation does not mean privacy-invading,
open source does not mean privacy-friendly and ...
in support of F-Droid does not mean privacy-friendly.

[deleted]

Pacienco on your 4 bullet points I agree to disagree.

Equal2024

Pacienco

open source does not mean privacy-friendly

While software being licensed under a free license is no guarantee it will be secure, private, or respect the user, it is the only software which can be altered by the community to do all of these things. Proprietary software may or may not be privacy-friendly, and it's difficult to tell one way or the other with certainty. With free software, you can examine the source code to confirm or assuage your concerns. If your concerns remain, you, a member of the community, or a developer you pay can rewrite the software such that it does what you want it to, and only what you want it to.

Another point to keep in mind is that if the software connects to a server over the internet, it matters little whether the source code running on the server is made available, because you cannot confirm this without privileged access to the server. The server may observe, retain, and analyze any information your client software provides it, and in lieu of an exacting privacy policy, you have no way to tell what is being done on that side. At a minimum, you know your Public IP Address must be transmitted to a server for the exchange to work at all. If you use a free software client, you can examine additional what information the client provides the server.

Where possible, it's worthwhile connecting to servers you control. For example; instead of using Google's phone location service, you can use PhoneTrack on your Nextcloud server. This is a server you have privileged access to, so you can confirm what source code is running on the server. If it's a homeserver, you can be completely assured. If you're renting a server with a hosting service, you can be reasonably assured. Much more than if you were trusting Google's servers.

Many apps users use on a daily basis connect to the internet to perform certain functions, so this information is worth knowing.

Pacienco

Equal2024

While software being licensed under a free license is no guarantee it will be secure, private, or respect the user, it is the only software which can be altered by the community to do all of these things.

I agree with some of the content of your post, particularly the software-as-a-service and cloud heavy aspects of modern apps. I would prefer people choose to develop and use open-source software over closed-source software. I would just be careful about the guarantees we claim open-source software brings.

I think we can rather say that given time and skill and the right environment (laws involved permitting) any local application can be almost effectively open source. Also, that being able to read and understand the source code for a piece of software gives you varying levels of confidence about what it does/does not do. Assuming the compilation is also accounted for somehow. What it won't give you is certainty.

This is off topic for this thread though, so where we can we need to relate back to mainstream apps.

Kevin719

You can do what I did, I had a samsung phone, found myself an old pixel phone for sale and installed GOS and I experimented many times trying to lessen my online footprint. I would at time switch back to my samsung phone, factory reset my pixel and experimented with multiple profiles, using strictly foss apps, installing gaps, until I found what woks for me. I found using vanadium browser for many web apps like Facebook, news sites, and banks just as easy as using the apps. Google maps was the hardest thing to get away from, nothing seems to compare for me, but that just goes in my Google profile that gets used on rare occasions.

Eirikr70

Phead Am I naive enough to believe google and Microsoft and apple and all the other big tech companies spy on me personally? Hardly, I'm not that interesting.

They certainly don't "personnally" spy on you. But they spy on the masses and use the information as a lever of influence. All of that being of course automated. I recommend this excellent reading : https://aeon.co/essays/privacy-matters-because-it-empowers-us-all

Equal2024

Pacienco

I would just be careful about the guarantees we claim open-source software brings.

I agree. It is unfortunate that, for whatever reason, as long as some software is licensed under an OSI-compatible license, some people take this to mean the software is safe, secure, and respects their privacy. This is the wrong assumption to make. The only assumption you can make about free software is that neither the original developer nor the publisher is in control; you are. You can examine and change anything about that software, and you can share your modified versions without fear. This is the one, fundamental thing free software has always been about—freedom.

It just so happens that most developers willing to release their software under a free license tend to respect their users. Whether you consider Google to be one of those developers is up to you.

So I agree with you that open source does not mean privacy-friendly, but I want to be careful not to equate free software with proprietary software because these privacy and security guarantees are not met. I don't agree with the perspective that a privacy community should care only about the intrinsic privacy/security achievable with the currently available software. Free software has other attractive properties for those in a privacy community which should not be so easily disregarded, such as sovereignty, which is related to privacy in the same way security is related to privacy.

I think we can rather say that given time and skill and the right environment (laws involved permitting) any local application can be almost effectively open source.

Open source does not only mean that the source code is available. There is a term for that—source-available. An example of a source-available program is TrueCrypt. Another example is Microsoft Windows. I assume you mean to refer to Free Software when you say you would prefer people choose to develop and use open-source software, which comes with four freedoms merely predicated on access to the source code.

The Open Source Definition is similarly very exacting about what qualifies as "Open Source", which is why they applied for a trademark for the term in 1998 (though they were not granted it), because they did not want anyone to use the term "Open Source" to refer to something which did not meet that definition.

Some software, like the Adobe Creative Suite, uses complicated mechanisms to obfuscate the running code and to prevent the user from disassembling the code. As you observe, with the right amount of time and right amount of skill, any software can be disassembled, but modification is made far more difficult without the original source code. Additionally, this is illegal under the DMCA, because it qualifies as copyright circumvention. You may face penalties even if you do this for security research: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/06/dmca-security-researcher-statement

Another aspect of free software worth mentioning is that it is not possible to encumber it with DRM.

Perhaps I emphasized the importance of access to the source code in determining the behavior of software too much. Access to the source code is most useful for changing this behavior, rather than determining it (though it can certainly help to more accurately determine what's going on). For further reading on the subject of free software and security, I found Seirdy's post enlightening: https://seirdy.one/posts/2022/02/02/floss-security/

This is off topic for this thread though, so where we can we need to relate back to mainstream apps.

I would say:

GrapheneOS is free software.
Most mainstream apps are not free software, but privacy-wise, because these apps are connecting to a server somewhere, using a free software client to access the service will likely not improve your privacy by much, if at all.
The biggest privacy improvement GrapheneOS offers is the ability to cut Google out of the picture. By sandboxing their apps, this means they learn less about you in many cases. Being able to trust your operating system is a large improvement over needing to trust a proprietary version of Android that is known to act against your best interests.
The ability to turn off Network and Sensors permissions for apps which don't need them is a more powerful guarantee over the proprietary version of Android. With access to your Sensors, even without the Location permission, apps could determine details about your location quite accurately using this permission. Most apps don't need this permission.
GrapheneOS has developed free software replacements for a lot of your default apps, like its PDF reader and Camera, which respect your privacy. You likely won't need to use proprietary replacements for them.
Storage Scopes. Instead of granting storage permissions, users can enable Storage Scopes to make the app assume that it has all storage permissions that it asked for
The security improvements alone are worth it.
If you use the same privacy-invasive apps, these bad actors will collect a similar amount of information about you. Google Maps, for example, is a big one. Not much is different on GrapheneOS. Maybe try out Organic Maps to see if it serves your needs.

The only reason not to use GrapheneOS is lack of compatibility with some financial apps (I doubt these apps will ever support a non-Google operating system with SafetyNet), or if Android Auto is something you desperately need. I'm not aware of anything iOS does better in the privacy department.

So, yes, perhaps using privacy-invasive apps will still be privacy-invasive for reasons GrapheneOS can't control, but no other phone operating system offers stronger privacy guarantees.

Phead

Eirikr70

Sure they do, but I know about that. That's why I chose not to use most of their services. Do I care that Google knows about me planning a trip to Spain? No, I don't. Do I care that Google acquired this information because I used Google Maps? No, I don't, I consent to that when I decided to use Google Maps. While I prefer to control when and what information I share with another party, I refuse to see Google et al. as plain evil. Collecting and selling data is their business model, period. They make a sh*tload of money by that and I certainly don't like how they do it, but at least they are more or less open about it. Having the choice to switch to more privacy friendly apps or services empowers me to avoid Google/Microsoft/You-name-it and give them my data only when I choose to do so. More or less.

To circle back on-topic: GrapheneOS gives me, the user, that freedom of choice. I can install all the Google stuff if needed. I can hide it behind a second profile on a need basis. I can choose to rely solely on FOSS alternatives or anything in between. Coming from iOS I found it liberating to have that choice (Playstore, F-Droid, GitHub APKs). Mix and match in a secure, my privacy respecting environment.