GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system
tomshardware.com
tomshardware.com
Laptops aren't rare either.
it's as if humans have a tendency to make up their mind/world view in their younger years and then tend to kinda stick with it/only change it slowly as long as no big live changing events happen
or who knows what problem is this supposed to fix. orphans buying phones? kids buying secret phones behind their parents back?
> By 2 years old, 4 in 10 children have their own tablet (40%), and by 4 years old, more than half of children (58%) do.
Tablet ownership rises to 68% at age 8.
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/researc...
it's the only form of "age verification" which can be done in a somewhat privacy respecting way (as in at most leak the age)
the idea is to "bounce back" the "is old enough" decision to parent controls and let the parent choose (the Californian law doesn't quite do that perfectly, but goes into that direction)
and if you sell what is more or less a general purpose compute/internet access device with OS (which I do include phones into) I think it's very reasonable to either sell it to adults only (with a disclaimer it's "not for children") or include proper parent controls
> Most households aren't going to have a separate device for every family member
in current times in the west it is very very common for many devices to be for one person only. Especially phones, or at least have different (OS) accounts.
but again this comes back to "parent controls", weather that is for a child (OS) account or a way to switch from a child profile to a adult profile doesn't matter
but in the end, the point of such laws should be to give parents tools to parent. As well as handling the case of parent acting in neglect by inaction. But if a parent intentional decides to give their children a device with their profile because they think it's fine than that should be their choice and responsibility.
> Likewise, people generally won't create a separate account for every potential user.
where it was possible I have not seen it not used, weather it's on a switch, gaming console or PC. It is the most convenient way of automatically separates logins, browsing history, game safes etc.
and the law als isn't made for that shared computer in the living room (through it will apply there). It's more about the devices children might use unsupervised, e.g. their phone.
Nothing. This has never been about protection of children. It is tracking real identity from every source to every destination otherwise known as user-tracking. If this was about protecting children they would require an RTA header on all adult and user-generated content sites and require the most common user agents to look for that header if parental controls are enabled. No tracking, no uploading anything. [1] Sufficient for small children which is more than we have now or will ever have thanks to corporate greed and lobbying.
except this is not true at all
yes there are people which try to systematically hijack child protection laws all the time for stuff like that
but e.g. the californium law is very clearly intended to avoid exactly that (that= tracking real identity)
> they would require an RTA header
they are politicians focused on law making, they have no idea what an "header" even is!
A politicians job is to identify issues consult people with expertise, propose a solution based on this people feedback and then listen to feedback, including from other groups. If they need to know what an HTTP header is and how that works something went really wrong.
But this is also where things often do go wrong, by a) dishonest and outright malicious consulting telling politicians bullshit, b) politicians having a over the top simplified understanding of a topic and think that it's still suited for extrapolating things from it leading them to nonsensical outcomes.
And if then large part of the industry which do care about non abusive solutions loudly refuses to provide any solution and denounce anyone trying to do so you are basically opening even more doors for anyone with malicious intentions. Which is pretty much the situation we have now.
Even worse not only do many people in the tech/hacker community not only not try to help with finding an acceptable solution they often outright reject that there is even a problem.
But there is a problem, a huge one even.
As just one dump example of many: it's currently harder for a teenager to get access to some wholesome soft porn then it is to watch potentially traumatizing and definitely not healthy content (weather it's violence, or certain forms of hard core porn(1)), or access sites/apps with gambling, prying on children, hate mongering, glorification of mobbing etc. etc.
And lets not forget most parents are non technical people, which means most of the reasonable usable and privacy protecting existing tools are not actually usable by them (and not available by default, and they can't reasonable evaluate which ones are okay either).
Also please don't say I grew up with a uncontrolled internet (~25-35y) and I am fine. Putting aside that the internet was very different back then. But also hardly anyone in that age range is truly mentally fine (for a lot of reasons, but that anyway makes it a pretty bad argument).
> RTA header
is insufficient, age isn't just 18+ or 13+. Through many media sites love to pretend that is the case
Furthermore this doesn't work for "feed" content as the server needs to know what to filter one before returning content.
But this is also the direction I have proposed in previous comments and not that far away from the direction the Californian law went to (but very much different to the UK law):
- provide a min. age category indicator for all content (most times by app, sometimes per-content in that app, sometimes per-origin per-content in that app (e.g. YT accessed through the browser). But this needs to be more complicated then 13+,18+ as categories differ by country and you should include tags and some other stuff.
- A parent control API which has a simple/naive default impl. but can be replaced with whatever parent think is right.
- A API to get the users age category (incl. localization, e.g. `us:13`). It needs explicit permissions and providers are not allowed to force it, every contents min-age-constraints still have to go through the parent control app. It's only for selecting content feed/preview. The specific content served might still be rejected by the parent controls! Using it for anything else should be made criminal illegal with personal liabilities for executives. (e.g. using it to try to sniff the exact age date of a person). A implementation which just serves `us:18` but then refused anything >13+ or similar must be treated as a legit possibility, the app must still work in general, but it might not have any further previews. Etc. Etc.
- The trust of age hints/evaluation is anchored solely in the parent controls, the setup of the parent controls is the parents responsibility. Any form of identification(2), AI face scans or similar as a requirement for setting up parent controls/not having a permanent 13+ account or similar _is strictly outlawed_.
- All sold products with preinstalled OS must have a default parent control app which is trivially to setup up in it's default setup and the default setup must only reqiore 1. localization (preset to current country if known, changeable), 2. age to auto adapt the age group where alternative the parent can set the age group, even through that means they have to change it in the future manually (needed for special care children). It also in it's default setup must not track/spy on everything the child does.
- Adult accounts still need compatibility with the APIs but will always provide 18+/yes content allowed.
- Products and e.g. downloadable OSes can decide to be "adult only", in which case their access must be guarded like any other adult only content (e.g. when you buy it) but in which case they don't need to support child accounts and can instead return hard coded 18+/yes content allowed.
(This is already the short(er) version :/, e.g. most countries have a 18-21 category, for many countries that category is only irrelevant for things anyway involving a identification (e.g. signing certain contracts, doing certain jobs), but e.g. the US relation to alcohol is an exception).)
---------
(1): And I don't mean just a bit of soft bondage, but things which will lead to serious health issues long term and/or involve violence, glorification of violence, suppression, misogyn, implications of torture, rape, child abuse or in case of drawn/generated content non-implications and even snuff.
(2): There can be some acceptable ways, e.g. a clerk checking your ID IRL, without recording anything except yes/no. Digital ID setups which only communicate adult yes/no without identification etc. But given that all relevant devices tend to be too expensive for children to buy them themself and you also should trust your child if it approaches adulthood (and might have the money) I don't think anything like that is really needed. In general this should focus on efficient solutions for age group <16. IMHO if you still need parent controls for 16+ you messed up parenting.
An API actually means that more and more details about the user will inevitably be added with time. This is a user-trackers dream come true. No thanks. One static header, done and dusted.
But this needs to be more complicated then 13+,18+
I will never agree with this nor will most people. Content is either adult or not adult. That is how existing parental laws are structured in most countries. The parent must decide if the child is ready to view content that is rated anything other than "G". The parent decides, not some app, not some API.
A child account on a tablet, phone, laptop need only prevent tampering with browser settings and by default enable parental controls which in turn simply look for an RTA header or any other indicators that the site or content is adult or user-generated in nature. Keep it simple. If people wont enable looking for a header then the only reason they would go far further and screw with an API would be if it were to the benefit of evil. (marketing, sales, manipulation of the child, manipulation of the parent).
with that logic you could also argue a computer means more APIs will be added over time
especially if it's a law mandated API which doesn't allow any additional thing this really isn't a problem
> I will never agree with this nor will most people
except overall (at least outside no HN bubble) most people would disagree with you, actually the huge majority of parents and children affected by that would disagree
Treating a 16 year old like they are 13 is just completely absurd.
Expecting parent to make decisions about every single peace of content (website, YT, video) their child, even if older, watches without providing any guidance and defaults is not practical at all and due to that is guaranteed to fail.
To be frank you comment is completely quixotic, lacking any relation to the reality most parents live in today.
The issue you're describing is strictly one of parenting, and not one that can or should be handled via some government agency. Their (Bender's) suggestion is actually the best that I've seen for handling this issue, and the only one I believe those I know would all happily agree with.
On a side note, this entire comment of yours is very unhinged. I'd wager you're far far far from being aware of the 'reality most parents live in today', based off of what you've said here.
---
> I'd wager you're far far far from being aware of the 'reality most parents live in today',
I'm not (EDIT: As in I have enough parents in my live, through there may be larger cultural differences.)
and it's beyond my understanding how anyone can think treating a 13 and a 16 year one alike is a reasonable solution
similar all the things I have proposed gives parents the tooling needed
you make it sound like having an app fully controlled and replaceable by the parents is somehow removing power/choice from them. But nothing in it excludes parents from allowing or disallowing children to watch content from other age categories, potentially on a peace by peace basis
what it does is take the IRL system which isn't perfect but works reasonable good from how we e.g. handle the sale of movies and applies it to the digital world
including the option to ignore it
but we also have to recognize the reality that not all parents bother to even try to properly parent, and others are stressed, overworked and struggle. So having a triviale setup once and get some somewhat reasonable baseline solution is important (and yes it shouldn't be important, but IRL it is anyway)
similar I think it's important to realize that not just 18+ content can be harmful a barely not 18+ horror movie can still be quite traumatizing for some 13 year old. At the same time when children become 16+ you should have build a relation of trust with them where they shouldn't need to tell you or ask you for permission for everything not appropriate for 13 year olds on the internet. But while trust is grate you still would want to do more than that to keep them away from e.g. online gambling and some other sides. Which brings us back to having a baseline which works without spying on your child but still blocks some things off. I don't see how this is supposed to work without a having a 16+ age category between 13/12+ and 18+.
I guess we can probably agree on the fact that most content should only need the content age rating -> you decide (through parent controls) app direction. The OS --api--> Site/App direction is only really needed to serve a feed of "next" content and some other edge cases you could argue aren't in the best interest of children. But also there are better ways to fix those issues (through other means) IMHO. So I personally still would include it. At least for the age range 16+.
Case in point, games rated G are what many of them use for watching porn, sharing warez and pirated movies and streaming movies/porn together. This is already a thing in many rated-G games especially but not limited to games that use VR headsets, social games and such. Some of the smaller indie games are how some bypass sanctions, embargoes and more. That is just one of many examples of how teen bypass all perceived restrictions. Some small children will see porn in these games but that is a different problem for a different day.
My focus is entirely on small children and their most common use cases. The 99% problem. Keeping the nastier parts of the internet partitioned from small children is mostly accepted by most parents, is the right time to do it before they such as teens know what they are being locked out of. As the child evolves and develops the parent can decide when it is time to lift parental controls and then sit with the child whilst they explore the nastiest of nastiness together. The parent can answer questions instead of waiting until they are young tweens for their tween friends to incorrectly answer questions and start spreading STD's and/or getting impregnated to learn the hard way. Before someone says it, yes tweens are getting pregnant more often because their bodies are developing earlier now due to chemicals they are being exposed to and they are hitting puberty much earlier, some as young as 8 or 9. Some are getting penetrated as young as 6 or 7 and younger. They need to learn from their parents, not random kids their age or random websites or some GPT.
One simple static RTA header set on a load balancer or accelerator or within server applications is done and dusted. It does not get any easier. A check for that header by the user agent or application on a locked down child account to trigger parental controls is also easy. This was a thing in the early 2000's on MSIE and a few other browsers based on MSIE I think SlimBrowser and a few others. An intern could likely add this check in an afternoon not counting Quality Assurance time. No leaking data via API's, no sharing age or any other identifying attributes. If someone is arguing to gather this data I can not take their ideas in good faith because I have worked along side all the nasty people that want this data and I know they have no ethics and will sell this data with all manor of evil people and evil organizations that would be good bed buddies with Epstein and friends. I am unwavering on this belief. I have whipped this dead horse into micronized dust and will continue long after that micronized dust is broken into Quarks and Leptons.
Also I'm not convinced that borrowing a device presents a new or different failure mode. Children could always obtain physical contraband from their friends so nothing has changed here.
also doesn't need to IMHO
it solves the problem of it being too trivial for a 12 year old to access content which at best is quite problematic and at worst outright traumatizing
as in, the same reason we have laws that a clerk glances at the age on you id if you look young and buy alcohol but your parent are still allowed to let you drink with them if they think its right (or what a 16+ movie with them etc. etc.)
this is also why it really shouldn't be anything much more fancy then parent controls checking min age of content locally / indication of age for feed fetching. Everything else is disproportional (unrelated from all the other issue it might have).
It doesn't hand over control of computing to governments
You know what they should do? They should scrap it all, no more "child safety" laws until we kicked money out of politics. Western liberal democracy is in a corruption and legitimacy crisis, this is just it's latest symptom.
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-beh...
[2] https://cybernews.com/privacy/persona-leak-exposes-global-su...
the current state has been close to that, and is co-associated to be a related to many existing issues wrt. to children/mental health/child safety (I very intentionally use co-associated instead of correlated, and definitely not root cause)
you could say law makers of many countries have given the industry ~30 years time to self regulate and come up with something acceptable by themself
The industry didn't. Now they have to regulate, it's their job and responsibility to do so :(
(but it's also their responsibility to not listen to highly malicious/biased lobbyist trying to hijack it into surveillance laws!)
honestly to some degree the industry still has a short time frame to fix it themself, provide an acceptable solution which can mostly work internationally (by having localization in it) and pitch that to the EU and US states not having yet decided on age verification laws, so that the few which already have some bad laws are pressured to change course
Through the problem is many non-cooperate entities instead insist it's all nonsense and there is no problem and companies like G, MS, Meta etc. have little interest fixing the situation. A misguided, hard to implement age verification law creates a legal moat to hinder smaller competing companies...
we have seen the same with the EU AI act, it's general outline is very reasonable especially if base that assessment on the corner comments. But thanks to big tech lobbyist hijacking it it became a economical/regulatory moat catastrophe (in the details and the parts which have not yet taking effect, not in every aspect).
could. But Google, Microsoft and Meta do not want to do it this way. They want to sell your personal data, the more, the better.
They want us to all to have user accounts and login like well behaved workers. So cute. Little Donald can login for hisself, and doesn’t need mommy to do it for him.
If taken at face value, sure.
The goal of those age verification laws are not age verification.
If someone wants to introduce an age-verification-ca-module, fine, but not make it core. Yes I understand systemd is not the kernel, but its ubiquitous enough.
That just says to every country around the world; Windows, Mac, and even Linux is on board too, let's make it law also!
I dunno, I always expected Linux to be the last bastion of freedom and not to capitulate so easily.
There are still distros without it, I may have to go to one, since I already jumped Win10 to Cachy for the BS MS is pulling. I was going to go systemd-free but Cachy "just worked" compared to the others in terms of setup. So I stuck with it.
I wish Lennart would just stop already.
BSD is much less invested in chasing the next big thing, and also has much less contributions from big tech. Which for me are both pluses. Of course I respect those who differ but they have Linux.
And when I see what Poettering is working on now with ammutable I'm even more glad I'm not on that train.
1) It's legally required to sell computers with that OS in certain jurisdictions
2) I presume there is at least one person actually selling said
3) The feature is so trivially easy to bypass that it presents no reasonable privacy threat at this time (IIRC, it's just a numeric field with no validation?)
After seeing how easily California bent OS developers (commerical and open source) to comply with their local laws, Canada decides they will go one further. They aren't happy with a simple date field that can be easily fudged. So they pass a law that requires all OS's to continually scan the biometrics of users using the OS. ie. Camera if it has one, fingerprint reader once an hour, voice analysis, etc.
They also refuse to allow computers to be sold in their country unless OS developers comply with their law.
Do you think you'll see such enthusiam to comply? Or will the line be drawn at some point?
it's maintained by companies
they have to comply with law
that they are mostly US companies doesn't exactly help either
I have no idea.
But they did actually bend over.
Systemd shouldn't be foisting this nonsense on Linux users however. I suppose the anti-systemd subset of the Linux community was proven right after all, this is the kind of issue that can end up facing when a huge piece of opinionated software like systemd more or less becomes an indispensable part of Linux.
> non-fallacious forms of the argument can also exist.[7]: 273–311
And I think history also shows these claims rarely end up happening the way these alarmists think it will.
Usually when a slope appears, regulation steps in, technology evolves, or the culture shifts, rather than society devolving into some inescapable dystopian hellscape.
An adult had to pay for the ISP connection; that's the extent of age verification needed. We shouldn't be demanding adults expose their identities to for-profit entities and surveillance states, so much as mandating for-profit companies make parental controls easier to use, more effective, and stopping them from harvesting data on kids in the first place.
Not every corner of the universe needs to be baby-proofed; we just need to build a society where parents are enabled and supported to be parents, rather than outsourcing such a critical role to strangers and/or devices so they can get back to work.
In many countries, it is still possible to buy a prepaid SIM without any ID.
What kind of apps do you people use that are so dangerous? Does the computer zap you if you misuse the app or what?
Ever heard of free wifi?
You can go down the rabbit hole as far as you like, but it's to no avail. At some point, an adult has to consciously enable the child to connect to the internet. Full stop.
I mean we have places here like that where you can insert some coins for a private viewing cabin but we don't call them libraries :)
systemd which was already in hot water over because the problems it creates over service, this was the last drop to get folks dropping systemct altogether.
I think the only option really at this point is to move over to BSD, but we face other issues like GPU drivers etc. The same people that worry about systemd probably also worry about AI, so if they want to be able to use it, it needs to run locally.
The 3rd option is to move away from general computing, and start building esp32 powered tools, where we can own the fulls stack. Dedicated digital tools for specific purposes. Personally, this sound like the best option, taking into account that we have almost lost the battle for open OS on mobile devices. We need to get away from the giant US corporations for the majority of our computing, and only interact with them when absolutely necessary. A grass roots computing moment basically.
Graphene obviously won't want to partner with a company that immediately bends over backwards for this kind of puritanical nonsense.
Like, what's unclear here? Do you seriously say that corporations should just ignore laws which they don't like?
I do not think our parent is suggesting otherwise.
AFAIK Motorola and GrapheneOS are not merging, they are getting into a partnership. They do not have to think or do exactly the same.
Apple can comply with both CCP and US demands at the same time without a problem. I am sure Motorola can adjust their services to the markets they are working in, as well.
Demanding that OSes outright violate the law because you disagree with your own elected government is pretty insane.
There are countless ways to satisfy any regulation while still doing whatever you actually want to do.
The very most obvious is simply sell the device, in the affected areas, with any sort of os that meets the letter of the law in that area.
If it's also easy for the user to install something else once it becomes their property, well that's the new owner's business atthat point, Motorola did their part and complied with everything required.
No one needs to demand a company violate anything. That is just a silly argument to even try to make. Calling people insane for things they never said nor even implied is what's insane.
Unfortunately it’s not enough because there’s also a need to work to get the laws repealed AND stop the endless attempts to bring them back.
What's next, browsers sending this to $website every time you need to post a comment on the web.
Society (mostly) works because we all agree that laws have intents. The wording is crafted as best as possible, and for the rest we have judges to shutdown lawyers trying to be a moffkalast smart asses.
How do you know this? Is there an official (or even unofficial) source of GOS preinstalled devices that a substantial amount of "typical GOS user" has acquired?
Or maybe you are talking about "potential user of GOS"?
In any case: if you installed it yourself you mostly have to trust the source of the installer. If you purchase a pre-installed device you're basically back to the android/ios model: you have to trust the manufacturer AND the maker of the OS
I haven’t cut over to it completely yet but I think this’ll be the last nail in the coffin for my time as an Apple user. It’s already a loveless marriage , it’s already over, I’m already sleeping with GrapheneOS on the side. it’s asking when I’m going to leave her and it’s always “soon, baby. soon.”
Is it lack of something similar to PKI for identify verification?
So we delegated the responsibility twice, first the gas station attendant must check the age of the buyer and then, the buyer should check the age of any reader.
So now, who's the "gas station attendant" in our situation?
and if sites and apps don't need to be in the loop for this they can't end up leaking all over the 'net
The tech crowds utter derangement over this minor mandate is truly a sight to behold.
Not quite. The least bad (that I'm aware of) is to mandate RTA headers (or an equivalent more comprehensive self categorization system) and to also mandate that major platforms (presumably OS and browsers, based on MAU or some such) implement support for filtering on those headers.
But sending a binned age as per the California law is the next best thing to that.
It is the same philosophy as with an app that forcibly wants an invasive permission to the detriment of the user. Let the app have the permission while in a sandbox so it sees nothing.
I don't think current iterations of the law require that this be sent off-device in any way.
age < 13
age >= 13 && age < 16
age >= 16 && age < 18
age >= 18
A non-maliciously compliant implementation would need to retain a date of birth or equivalent until the user was over 18.
A maliciously compliant API could just wait 18 years after account creation before yielding an answer. (remember folks: "real time" does not mean "fast").
One of the oddities about the way the law is phrased is that it requires the age band information about the user be provided to "the developer" rather than to the application.
Is anyone actually going to bother to do this though? Why would they?
So, expose it via a Unix socket only accessible to the account named "developer"?
Only half joking.
Biometrics are not required.
The concept appears to be that a parent or guardian could enter the birth date before turning the device over to a child.
Malicious compliance would be providing this age bracket API:
boolean is_user_over_18() { sleep (18 * 365.25 * 86400); return true; }
This is a real-time interface (as required by the law) that takes 18 years to complete. (Remember: "Real-time" does not mean "fast").
Why would anybody bother to implement that?
Having an age setting is not verification.
I hate the articles that lump everything together.
It also gets sites to stop doing their own invasive verification systems.
I don't think the California law makes it easier in any meaningful way to pass age verification laws, considering how many age verification laws have already passed. I see it as something that has real uses by itself and also can get many apps/sites that would have done US-wide age verification to trust the setting instead.
In different times, i might have argued differently. I'm not saying it's not worth protecting the world you deem worthy of protection. But no matter what that world is to any of you. The one we all share is changing for sure. Uncontrollably fast. And many things are gonna change. And many things won't matter that much anymore, if we actually end up going where we're headed.
I mean a this is just a super small part of it all, but i assume in this specific case, for graphene, it's a battle for privacy... and they're right. But we're still going into a future where we got 5,10,20,30 more years of "AI", even just keeping the same level of overall sophistication for most, but costs decreasing immensely... I don't know about you, but I don't think the ways we protect our privacy can be unaffected, already because we're going to learn all new aspects about which data is private. Just out of practicality. Extreme example: but if generating hundreds of obscene deepfakes of any person as easily as taking a photo with your iPhone... ah, i can't keep having this discussion, i hope i am just an insane moron who is wrong. But, just to be sure: instead of arguing if we should close the windows on the train that's burning, or leave them open, as some are smart and others need help, let's just get off the fucking train.
And yes of course. One might argue (I actually would), we should not start implementing laws like that or start making personal information a requirement to digital access.
But this might be the first step to a different future, or not. As i said, who cares where the train is headed. It's burning and nobody even really wants to be on it. Let's please get off the train.
Not saying the battle is lost. I have tried working on something because I still have great hope. But someone seriously must act. I tried, getting off the train. Or at least start standing up from my seat. Realizing it's not that easy to get off. It's embarrassing, but i can't even get off the train by myself... i tried anyway... but here i am, sitting again (currently on the floor, lost my seat, damn...)... i have been building something for the past 2 years. Well, trying to build something, an attempt to change course... ruining my life over it. And currently i failed, before i even got to a point where my prototype or any of the theoretical work even remotely represents the vision. But maybe i just learned, i was wrong about all of it. I hope i'll make it back being able to afford working on it and someday a way to make enough money to pay smarter people than me to join. But currently, it's insane for me for me to even dare dreaming about that. I have really dug myself a hole. Next time, it should at least be a hill...
So in the meantime: can people like the dudes & dudiñas from graphene please chose a wiser battle. If just some of all these people got together & worked on getting off the train, instead of working on things that seem meaningful now, but wouldn't even be considered worthy of being mentioned in the future... we'd have a shot.
Damn. I still just can't accept it, even though i've literally lost everything believing that. And i am ashamed so deeply believing in what i saw, and in friendly moments still see, as a future... thinking i could change it, without changing myself... but please god, in the end, let me not have been just bonkers, but convicted.
(As if that, would be, any different).
"GrapheneOS will remain usable by anyone around the world without requiring personal information, identification or an account."
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116261301913660830
That raises the issues that GrapheneOS needs to solve, which may require more creativity than bold, somtimes combative statements.
If GrapheneOS doesn't comply with laws and regulations then they will sometimes be banned or restricted. If that happens, they may not be "usable by anyone around the world" for long.
That doesn't mean they have to capitulate or sacrifice security. They can find creative solutions, some of which are suggested here. The first step is to carefully read the spec to determine what is necessary, then talk to someone like the EFF, and find a way forward.
Also it would be nice if, where Graphene has partnered with hardware manufacturers, then said hardware sellers could issue a statement like "$Manufacturer promises that in regions where GrapheneOS is illegal we'll leave the bootloader unlocked, if users choose to break local legislation then that is on them" and furthermore a statement like "$Manufacturer fully swears on all honour possible that in any regions which ban unlocked bootloader devices then, oops, we found that if you short pins 3 and 8 of the third chip on the left together at any time during booting you'll permanently unlock the bootloader and absolutely nobody is allowed to know that. Which is why we've posted this on every social media channel. Afterall, all our users need to know that they're not allowed to know that the bootloader can be unlocked by shorting pins 3 and 8 (third chip on the left) with anything less than 20 ohms (nobody must know that a paperclip would do for this)".
Nonetheless: Well done GrapheneOS!!!!!!!