How good is /e/ privacy based LineageOS fork?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
You do have a good point. However, I can’t consider a proprietary operating system like iOS truly private. It may be secure (certainly more so than stock Android and some random custom Android based ones) but if I can’t be sure that my operating system isn’t spying on me, then security alone doesn’t matter much for me tbh. Apple’s operating systems are no exception to this.
So, in a ranking that considers both security AND privacy, iOS being the second one is questionable. However, if the ranking is based solely on security, then I have no issue with it.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I think a lot of your reasoning there is actually FUD and you might want to take a more evidence based approach.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Came here literally to comment this. Hooooly fuck, I would not trust /e/ as far as I can throw a Fairphone. Good thing they're compostable, becauze that's the only up they have on a Graphene flash.
Until I can take a basic actionable step to ensuring my information is safe like LOCKING MY BOOTLOADER... I am good over here.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
$150 for a refurb Unlocked Pixel 6 from eBay. That's both cheaper, more ecologically friendly, and better for your privacy than /e/ can ever hope for.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
GOS team are some elitist jerks, sure, but what they make works well. And I respect the fuck out of Calyx for being committed to making something like MicroG work.
GOS or Calyx, either is gonna be miles better than /e/. /e/ is running their 'native IP scrambler' on a two-year old commit of TOR. Fuck everything about that.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
On the surface. DivestedOS has a whole laundry list of bugs and defects that /e/ hasn't patched in yeeeeaarrs. Including how many holes their so-called 'IP scrambler' actually has.
Your coworkers would be safer with stock. Or Lineage. Or literally anything else.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
sigh
My evidence is something being proprietary and in the hands of big tech (in this case Apple). What makes you blindly trust in Apple's words?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I didn't like my tone in my last response so I apologize.
Something be propriety isn't evidence of anything nefarious nor is something being from a large company. That's not evidence at all.
I'm not trusting Apples word, the privacy feature examples I've mentioned are proven working methods. Unless you have some source showing that RCS or their private relay don't work in someway.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I don't know about you but if I don't know what a program that I can't inspect the code of does, I'll just assume the worst case scenario. I can't prove it but you also can't prove that it isn't doing something shady, can you? So what if I am using Private Relay? Apple will know what websites I visit or what I do with my phone as long as I use their proprietary operating system. And with this, I am saying it again: Apple's operating systems are no exception to this rule.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
So you actually inspect the source code of everything you use?
This whole line of reasoning really only works if you have the expertise to understand the code in the first place. Otherwise you are just shifting trust from what the company tells you to what a third party looking at the source tells you. Sometimes that works but its in no way fool proof.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
No, of course I don't. I am not as paranoid as Richard Stallman, but I am also not as pronoid as the average humam to just use proprietary software when there are similarly functioning open source software. With open source software, you can inspect the code and compile the code that you inspected. This is not true for something like iOS.
And of course, FOSS malware also exists (for example the recent xz data compression program). But guess what? You can find if it is really malware or not because you ultimately can inspect the code and compile the code you inspected. That is also why the malware in xz was found out. Who knows what there is in closed source software you can't inspect the code of. Do you perhaps believe in security through obscurity? Using open source software is always an advantage. Praise for privacy software should be earned through the ability to verify them, and not granted by default.