Asklemmy

@iliketrains @jackpot @TexMexBazooka @Blake @peter @seliaste @pewgar_seemsimandroid you don't necessarily have to give up privacy and freedom for security because GrapheneOS does exist, but yeah, it's an awful, sucky choice if you don't have a Pixel phone, and the state of mobile operating systems is indeed atrocious from a freedom and privacy standpoint. But I don't think it's useful to deny the gigantic gaping easily exploitable security holes in LineageOS and CalyxOS just because we want to support privacy and freedom. People need to be able to make an informed choice about what's more important to them. And yes with poor operational security you can end up accidentally getting compromised anyway, but with poor device security it's literally *guaranteed* that nothing you do operational-security wise will protect you from a determined investigation or attack. It's the difference between authorities having to rely on someone happening to make a mistake in how they use Tor or Signal versus being able to just pull their messages from their phone easily through a number of gaping security holes. Everyone will have different threat models and different things they care about, and I'm not saying nobody should use Lineage or Clayx — for the average person that isn't doing leftist organizing their threat model is most likely going to be more about corporations hoovering up their data than it is going to be the police or the government, and so even an insecure operating system that is private will be better because insecurity gives the possibility of people getting your data but at least having privacy means that there isn't a *guaranteed* actor that's getting your data, so if you don't have a Pixel they're fine — but I don't think we should pretend like lineage OS and calyx Os or even remotely as secure as other mobile operating systems, or that security doesn't matter lmao