Replying to
@girlpocalypse@infosec.exchange
Remote
MetropleX
@metr0pl3x@grapheneos.social
mastodon
4.6.5
Privacy is a Human Responsibility Priv/Acc
GrapheneOS Advocate
@grapheneos.org
Personal Acct. Views Explicitly My Own
Retoots & Engagement ≠ Endorsement
311
Followers
64
Following
22
Posts
Joined March 06, 2023
Website:
X:
SUSPENDED for Impersonation 🤷♂️
Posts
RE: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116946765689545308
Give @josh@sideofburritos.social a follow too. Fantastic and concise content for real world users.
Tell him I sent you.
He's over on BSky too:
https://bsky.app/profile/sideofburritos.com
Replying to
@ElliesSurviving@tech.lgbt
@ElliesSurviving@tech.lgbt @josh@sideofburritos.social thankyou Ellie 😁 and yeah I got the same treatment they gave Naomi Brockwells Privacy Wins account. They turfed that for Impersonation too if I remember rightly.
Replying to
@josh@sideofburritos.social
@josh@sideofburritos.social so true and the fact they can't offer the choice of either keeping things as is on a profile plus the documentation or altering the profile similar to deleting an offending tweet that causes a suspension is beyond me. Everything I requested and offered was reasonable their actions/process is not.
Replying to
@josh@sideofburritos.social
@josh@sideofburritos.social probably reported to end up on the radar. Beyond that they seemingly blanketed everyone who was on a list. Only those complying would get them back. However as you can see even if I was willing the unattended process means you can end up supplying information just to see what sticks as you can't actually resolve and narrow the scope.
Replying to
@metr0pl3x@grapheneos.social
Finally...
My experience of dealing with X support being suspended for 'Impersonation' after filing my report at the beginning of the month to now.
Likely a fishing exercise for me to identify myself. At no point is it evident a human was involved in the process. (I can't seriously be considered an autobot.)
RE: @metr0pl3x@grapheneos.social
TLDR: Gael Duval head of Murena and /e/OS partner of Fairphone declared privacy/security maximalists using 'hardened' OS/tools are paedophiles.
We pointed this & it's obvious PR grade targeting of us out.
People focused on the latter over the former because...? Reasons.
Reaction from privacy/security/freedom/civil rights advocates and organisations in response to the smear? Crickets.
Replying to
@lincoln@social.tchncs.de
@lincoln@social.tchncs.de Gael Duval claimed privacy and security maximalists who use the best tools are peadophiles. Wonder if others will communicate it to save us doing it or whether they'll play apologist because we emphasised based on the language used they were targeting us? Is there an issue with them taking a platform like that and comminicating this the way they did?
Replying to
@metr0pl3x@grapheneos.social
Fear of being dog piled like us probably.
Replying to
@metr0pl3x@grapheneos.social
The European Flag and Open Source shouldn't be shields behind which ideological demagogues and bad faith actors should be able to hide behind.
You may not like our pedagogic approach but it comes from having faith in people to discern fact from fiction, and appreciate hearing from people auditing the claims. Those who can audit closed source code do, everyone can audit open source but 99% of people can't & don't. If they are why are we the only voice, what are the motives for staying silent?
Everybody, Telegram is a scam, isn't as private or secure as Advertised. Pavel Durov is scamming people and shouldn't be trusted.
Everybody, Whatsapp is a scam, Meta harvests metadata, contacts etc Zuckerberg is scamming people & shouldn't be trusted.
GrapheneOS explains Murena scam people and /e/OS neither enables your privacy, respects your data or protects you with even basic security.
The fediverse? Mass cognitive dissident seizure saying we shit on projects/need social media training.
Replying to
@metr0pl3x@grapheneos.social
Replying to
@halcy@icosahedron.website
@halcy validating the integrity of a device is fine and has multiple benefits as explained here when using the open Hardware Attestation API for an OS and device pair to verify themselves. The bit that shouldn't exist is app distributors using it to enforce locked and closed market protection systems. Individual app developers can and should have already self regulated by using the existing open standard if they needed it, not adbicating responsibility to a centralised mechanism.
Replying to
@SomeGadgetGuy@techhub.social
@SomeGadgetGuy one is worse because of the popularity and exposure, the other is worse because of lack of security forward approach. I'd rather not enumerate badness and just call out the problems for what they are. That said I know which track would fix the vulnerabilities and issues when they're found though and I think you know too. 😉
Replying to
@metr0pl3x@grapheneos.social
@SomeGadgetGuy
Read more here:
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1961137060820951379
Also a post from the Wireguard dev with their concerns is available here:
https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/issues/3110#note_1613430404
This led to them including a self-update system which was openly implemented and documented. F-Droid was unaware they'd shipped it for half a year, and by then WireGuard had essentially escaped from in their words being held hostage by F-Droid.
Replying to
@SomeGadgetGuy@techhub.social
@SomeGadgetGuy I'd be worried about installing from F-Droid regardless due to very poor security practices including very delayed updates, downgraded dependencies, problematic undocumented changes and an insecure build server environment. Their own app has an abysmally low targetsdk also, despite newer versions for it an outdated one is linked on the website, which causes conflicts when people have multi users when trying to install across them as the preexisting one has updated. Shambles.
RE: @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
🤯 Whoah...
The same project that enables Google binaries and exectuables in the privileged system partition?
Damn
Replying to
@wod0bow@mastodon.social
@wod0bow@mastodon.social we require devices that permit, allow and fully support alternate OS use of all hardware features on a device. Unfortunately Samsung intentionally do the opposite crippling unlocked devices with the Knox efuse.
Came across this when away visiting family a couple weeks ago...
I agree wholeheartedly, take the first step?
• Flash @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
grapheneos.org