Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The quote Par contre, on a pas une approche "sécurité durcie", on développe pas un téléphone pour les pédo(bip) pour qu'ils puissent échapper à la justice. is literally in the linked video. I encourage everyone who does not speak French to put it in their favorite translator. He literally says However, we do not have a hardened security approach, we are not developing a phone for pedophiles so that they can escape justice.

It is very clear what he is implying here, namely what I said in my original message.

He has repeatedly done so in various publications. E.g.:

https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-intervie...

Mais surtout, il ne faut pas se tromper de combat : /e/OS permet à ses utilisateurs d’échapper à la collecte massive de données personnelles qui s’opère dans les smartphones du marché, pas d’aider les pédocriminels à passer sous les radars de la justice.

Translation:

But above all, we must not fight the wrong battle: /e/OS allows its users to escape the massive collection of personal data that takes place in smartphones on the market, not to help pedophiles to slip under the radar of justice.

He repeatedly implicaties that only sex offenders need a security-hardened phone.

If we wasn't trying to throw a shade at GrapheneOS and other more secure systems, why does he continuously associate device security with pedophiles?

> He repeatedly implicaties that only sex offenders need a security-hardened phone.

On he doesn't! You trying to read implicit things when there's an explicit rebuttal of your interpretation just a few seconds later in littetaly the same extract!

You can be upset that he talks about pedophiles at all, but you can't claim he said it's ONLY for pedo when he said right after that it's REALLY USEFUL FOR EXECUTIVES.

Listen, I, unlike you who seem deeply invested in GrapheneOS's crusade against this dude, have zero skin in this game, I didn't know this guy before a few hours ago when I stumbled on this thread. But here you're literally making things up from a short video that literally says the opposite of what you're arguing against, and it's painful to watch.

The whole point of his argument is “we're not addressing the most security sensitive segment”. And while I can understand that you don't like that he talks about pedophiles at all, I'm pretty sure talking about “our phone isn't for pedophiles” is mostly to avoid adverse customers reaction against how they “aren't criminal and don't need a device to go to the darknet”.

Can we please not resort to personal attacks? For the record, I am not deeply invested in the project, nor in any way related to the project.

As for the rest of your comment, thank you for giving your point of view. Although I don't agree, I appreciate that you took the time to explain how you came to your position.

Cheers.

Why are you complaining about personal attacks when you began with an attack on a person by misinterpreting what they said and accusing them of things they didn't claim?

The grandparent assumed and stated things about me that are not true. I have quoted things that the CEO of the given company actually said and I think a lot of people will come to the same conclusion. If he repeatedly brings up pedophiles in the same context as security hardening, then it at the very least it is very suggestive. Why mention pedophiles at all?

Everybody needs a security-hardened phone. Apple has been hardening iPhone for almost 20 years. Google has hardened Pixel from the start. This isn't specifically about GrapheneOS. Everybody should be worried, this is the kind of narrative is what drives Chat Control, etc. Security hardening (in reality) protects us against malicious apps, attackers, (to some extend) against privacy-invading apps, etc.

So, I ask you: what is the point of raising pedophiles in more than one interview when talking about security hardening?

By the way, I don't expect an answer. It's a rhetorical question. This discussion has been beaten to death. I think at this point we have to agree to disagree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com