237
The founder of /e/os is anti-security
(bsky.app)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
237 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
48880 readers
698 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
It can be made very good from a security and privacy perspective.
If you know you know I guess.
There's good reason to suspect that it's very terrible from its privacy and security perspective.
If you remember you remember I guess.
Do you think it’s possible for companies or individuals to not comply with court ordered surveillance and search warrants? That’s what prism is, nsa driven data collection ordered by the court system.
Further, on its own and absent any other evidence, the timeline of prism entry corroborates my statement that ios is second to graphene.
Apple is not a good company, there are no good companies. Apple is a company selling security and privacy amongst other things. You have to buy security and privacy because you can’t go out into the backyard, fell a phone tree, carefully choose the section with the strongest, straightest traces and shape it into an optimally private and secure device in the shed using your grandfathers antique phoneworking bench and strap driven phone lathe.
Companies can't, no. That's precisely my point. Hence your argument that iOS is more "secure" than any other bar Graphene is disingenuous. iOS is developed by a company which can be (and likely already has been) pressured into compromising its users on behalf of three-letter agencies. The NSA slides are strong evidence of that.
Large collectives of devs spread out all over the world, however, can withstand such pressures since they're hard to get a hold of. The developers of OSs such as Graphene, Debian or Lineage could easily resist such attempts, simply because they're not a legal entity incorporated inside a single jurisdiction.
You're correct in saying that Apple is "selling" privacy and security (as in: marketing, pinky-promising). They may be selling that story, but I ain't buying it.
As a longtime and current debian user, lol if you think it hasn’t been infiltrated or that any network of developers spread over the globe could resist infiltration let alone the open source “community”.
A large portion of the maintainers of popular open source projects are en the employ of some company or other explicitly because of their maintainer role. Even if some hypothetical distributed global network of developers could resist infiltration, the maintainers of our open source software cannot.
The building blocks of android are maintained by developers who are employed by google. Google was compliant with prism four years before Apple (the exact amount of time it would take for a sealed case to wind its way through appeals).
If the fact of apples compliance with the laws of its jurisdiction worry you, the fact that people don’t get targeted or convicted off of information from properly configured icloud accounts or locked Apple devices should counteract that worry. The fact that other generally held to be trustworthy companies like mullvad are compliant with the laws of their jurisdiction should make it clear that legal compliance doesn’t necessarily mean a company or service isn’t trustworthy.
I would also like to point out that for the purposes of us law, entities outside the jurisdiction of the us are subject to a freer surveillance apparatus which need not be hampered by what some judge is willing to sign off on and doesn’t need to comply with its subjects rights as defined under us law.
An apple in Mexico would be able to offer fewer protections to its us customers than one incorporated in the us.