GrapheneOS [Unofficial]
Official announcements from the GrapheneOS project.
Subscribe to this community or add it to your RSS reader in order to be notified about new releases and important updates.
Search c/GrapheneOS.
For discussions about the GrapheneOS project, visit our forum or join our community chat.
Our Code of Conduct.
GrapheneOS is a privacy and security focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility. This is a community based around the GrapheneOS projects including the hardened Android Open Source Project fork, Auditor, AttestationServer, the hardened malloc implementation and other projects.
Please use our official install guides for installation and check our features page, usage guide and FAQ for information before asking questions in our discussion forum or chat rooms to get as much information as possible from what we've already carefully written/reviewed for our site.
Contact the moderators of this community if you have any questions or concerns.
It's an outrageous infringement on the GrapheneOS copyright and trademarks.
It was forked and distributed as ArcaneOS. How is that an infringement?
Based on the investigation done into it, it had a small subset of GrapheneOS changes applied and they falsely advertised it as GrapheneOS. They likely took some of the changes in order to mislead people into believing they were given a variant of GrapheneOS. It didn't use the GrapheneOS branding though. They used the already well established name and reputation of GrapheneOS to appeal to those it was being sold to.
they falsely advertised it as GrapheneOS
From your article:
When booting up the phone, it displays a logo for an operating system called “ArcaneOS.” Very little information is publicly available on ArcaneOS. It’s this detail that has helped lead several people who have ended up with Anom phones to realize something was unusual about their device.
It didn't use the GrapheneOS branding though.
Then it's not copyright or trademark infringement
Doesn't matter how it was branded on the device, what matters for the infringement is how it was sold, we have information that they were being sold AS GrapheneOS using our trademark.
From the International Trademark Association
Use of well-known trademarks such as in comparison lists used by marketers of imitations, was not fair use because it gave the marketers an unlawful comparative advertising advantage by allowing them to trade off the reputation of the well-known marks. (EU)
Our name being used alongside and for the promotion of these products infringes our Trademark outside of fair use.
we have information that they were being sold
Do you have any references to that? Pictures at least, or something? I mean, the person above repeatedly asks for details. Originally the claim was that the explanation is in the referenced article, but now it's not. Where is it then?
Nothing public no however it was stated to us by individuals similarly aware of these devices as those referenced in the vice article in contact with us.
I can see that if this were verified and true, with hard evidence provided, a big investigative news agency like The Guardian, would get their teeth of this and stick it on their headline pages. I think there is a lot of crap and conspiracy theories on the Internet and I still believe in true investigative jounalism. As a society, we are changing our habits, trusting social media rather that true journalism. This is why people like the orange man in the US and his pals in Israel an Russia are f***ing up the world. We are all falling for it ...
I'm not finding how Signal is involved. Was the government involved with sniffing something in Signal, too? Or is Signal just another name thrown into the "only used by criminals" category?
France back in 2023 targeted Signal (discovered through a leaked memo) and it's service saying it wasn't secure to push ministers and others to French solution Olvid.
The same year French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin said that he would like to force encrypted messaging services to introduce 'backdoors' to make them available to authorities. Mirroring the recent threat from Johanna Brousse toward GrapheneOS:
"These hitherto inviolate devices, which protect communications and which do not share data on servers, are a new challenge that the cyber prosecutor's office intends to take on"
In both cases it is likely realistically focused on pushing users to France based alternatives. In this case the EU funded murena /e/OS.
As I understand it, in a separate incident, the FBI implied that they had 'compromised' a signal network (99% certain they compromised an endpoint, person or phone, but wanted to FUD signal coz they hate it). gOS and signal being solid privacy respecting secure software is the connection.
They talk about it right at the beginning
My personal info dump: Signal was funded by Radio Free Asia, a CIA program
You claim "was funded" or "was founded"? Because funded means just that they sent some money. Could be to appear more legit or whatever the reason.
Massively funded
It's a claim you can verify on Wikipedia for example
I've tried just now, and I can't confirm any of your claims. Neither about "massively funded", nor about being funded at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia (no mentions of being funded by CIA, no mentions of Signal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation (no mentions of CIA, no mentions of Radio Free Asia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) (no mentions of CIA, no mentions of Radio Free Asia)
Radio Free Asia and other programs of Radio Liberty and such were lead by the propaganda agency called United States Agency for Global Media (which Trump recently defunded). It also supervised the Open Technology Fund (you can at the very least read on the wiki page of the OTF that it funded Signal). It is not a state secret that these are CIA programs. I can give you sources if needed when I'm at home. I'm pretty sure all of this was shown on their respective wikipedia pages but again, wikipedia is just an example for western and well accepted source
I don't understand the last paragraph. Are they talking about public statements or more that this thing advertising as graphene is implying it?
An overall view of France's actions generally.