makes sense that they’d remove it from their forums if it has nothing to do with graphene. not a single point relevant to the OS
Regardless of whether or not its worthy of discussion, this is heavily AI assisted at least, and GrapheneOS does not allow “walls of verbose text” (which this certainly is…) generated by AI.
Maybe if this person cared enough to follow the forum rules there could be discussion on this topic.
Yeah, a lot of this is undisclosed LLM drivel. Also, the “author” fails to mention or consider that none of the scummy logging/control services would be running in GrapheneOS in the first place. It’s irrelevant.
I’m curious if anybody read the article and had a convincing point from it.
I scrolled down and was greeted with paragraphs about other phone manufacturers and carriers unrelated to Motorola. Not only is it slop, but additionally the author either doesn’t trust their own evidence enough to keep it concise… or, worse, they didn’t even bother to read it.
Samsung Electronics → Samsung Group Samsung is a South Korean conglomerate. While it is independent of Chinese state influence, Samsung ships its own extensive telemetry framework (Knox, Samsung Ads) on every device, and its carrier-customized firmware for prepaid devices includes its own extensive set of un-removable bloatware.
Digital Turbine, Inc. (NASDAQ: APPS) is an Austin, Texas-based publicly traded company. It operates the “Ignite” platform (com.dti.tracfone). Their business model relies on carrier contracts where providers like Verizon/TracFone allow Digital Turbine to preinstall software, charging app developers to silently drop applications onto devices as high-yield advertising delivery vehicles.
Curiously enough, for years and years the main criticism of GrapheneOS is that it only runs on Google Pixel phones. Finally, they announce they will work with another provider, Motorola. Some people proceed to simply forecast enshitification, spyware, and ads. I don’t think this is sane at all.
Yes Motorola and everyone else, why do you think most companies have their own flavour of ui? But it makes me wonder if they’re gonna try to pack some hardware level way to spy on users
brand new account that registered just to share this link? that’s not sus at all.
We’re really comparing a burner to whatever Graphene is developing with Moto? Also, points deducted for the “owned by China bad” talking point.
Something to be cautious of, but we need more actual evidence. Hopefully several different groups with diverse political interests and localities audit the new hardware when it launches.
I have a 2 year old cheap Motorola smartphone because I needed a Googled normie Android burner for certain apps, and I don’t like to mix work and private device functions. I will say stock Motorola devices come with an annoying customized version of Android with tons of bloatware out of the box. I was able to remove 99% of it with ADB after identifying the offending packages.
Obvs that shouldn’t be a problem with custom De-Googled OS on Motorola hardware.
R u kidding me
This is true, Motorola devices send really weird info to motpaks.com and motpks.com. Can’t uninstall the PAKS application. That’s why I use my LineageOS Xiaomi Redmi Note 9s.
Edit: some stuff from the app:
adb shell dumpsys package com.motorola.paks | grep permission declared permissions: requested permissions: android.permission.CHANGE_NETWORK_STATE com.motorola.permission.ACCESS_PRODUCT_PERSIST android.permission.READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE android.permission.RECEIVE_BOOT_COMPLETED android.permission.ACCESS_KEYGUARD_SECURE_STORAGE android.permission.DEVICE_POWER android.permission.MANAGE_USERS android.permission.CHANGE_WIFI_STATE android.permission.OEM_UNLOCK_STATE com.motorola.actions.provider.permission.READ_MODES com.motorola.actions.provider.permission.WRITE_MODES com.motorola.permission.WRITE_SECURE_SETTINGS com.motorola.permission.PAKS_BIND_PERMISSION android.permission.INSTALL_PACKAGES android.permission.DELETE_PACKAGES android.permission.MANAGE_DEVICE_ADMINS android.permission.MANAGE_PROFILE_AND_DEVICE_OWNERS android.permission.START_ACTIVITIES_FROM_BACKGROUND android.permission.INTERACT_ACROSS_USERS android.permission.QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES android.permission.INTERNET android.permission.ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE android.permission.MANAGE_NETWORK_POLICY android.permission.MANAGE_ROLE_HOLDERS install permissions: com.motorola.permission.PAKS_BIND_PERMISSION: granted=true com.motorola.actions.provider.permission.READ_MODES: granted=true android.permission.INSTALL_PACKAGES: granted=true android.permission.CHANGE_NETWORK_STATE: granted=true android.permission.RECEIVE_BOOT_COMPLETED: granted=true com.motorola.actions.provider.permission.WRITE_MODES: granted=true android.permission.MANAGE_ROLE_HOLDERS: granted=true android.permission.DEVICE_POWER: granted=true android.permission.MANAGE_PROFILE_AND_DEVICE_OWNERS: granted=true android.permission.INTERNET: granted=true android.permission.READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE: granted=true android.permission.ACCESS_KEYGUARD_SECURE_STORAGE: granted=true android.permission.CHANGE_WIFI_STATE: granted=true android.permission.MANAGE_USERS: granted=true android.permission.ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE: granted=true android.permission.INTERACT_ACROSS_USERS: granted=true android.permission.OEM_UNLOCK_STATE: granted=true android.permission.MANAGE_DEVICE_ADMINS: granted=true com.motorola.permission.WRITE_SECURE_SETTINGS: granted=true android.permission.MANAGE_NETWORK_POLICY: granted=true android.permission.START_ACTIVITIES_FROM_BACKGROUND: granted=true android.permission.QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES: granted=true android.permission.DELETE_PACKAGES: granted=true runtime permissions:adb shell pm disable-user --user 0 com.motorola.paks Exception occurred while executing 'disable-user': java.lang.SecurityException: Cannot disable a protected package: com.motorola.paks at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerService.setEnabledSettings(PackageManagerService.java:4308) at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerService.-$$Nest$msetEnabledSettings(PackageManagerService.java:0) at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerService$IPackageManagerImpl.setApplicationEnabledSetting(PackageManagerService.java:6340) at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerShellCommand.runSetEnabledSetting(PackageManagerShellCommand.java:2489) at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerShellCommand.onCommand(PackageManagerShellCommand.java:273) at com.android.modules.utils.BasicShellCommandHandler.exec(BasicShellCommandHandler.java:97) at android.os.ShellCommand.exec(ShellCommand.java:38) at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerService$IPackageManagerImpl.onShellCommand(PackageManagerService.java:6992) at android.os.Binder.shellCommand(Binder.java:1068) at android.os.Binder.onTransact(Binder.java:888) at android.content.pm.IPackageManager$Stub.onTransact(IPackageManager.java:4374) at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerService$IPackageManagerImpl.onTransact(PackageManagerService.java:6976) at android.os.Binder.execTransactInternal(Binder.java:1344) at android.os.Binder.execTransact(Binder.java:1275)The DNS calls:
deleted by creator
Graphene is open source so what’s up with your panic?
deleted by creator
The base OS of Android is, but the widely dispersed version maintained by Google with the hardware drivers required for it to work with the actual hardware is not.
That’s why projects like Graphene can’t work on every phone. They have to rely on either reverse engineering hardware drivers or the manufacturers providing the drivers. For many years, Google openly released the drivers for all the hardware in their Pixel line of phones, which allowed Graphene and other customized versions of Android to easily work on Pixel phones.
Manufacturers usually don’t release drivers separately and instead they’re only available built into the manufacturers customized Android version. Android Open Source Project is the open source base, then Google builds their proprietary stuff on top as “Android”, then the various phone manufacturers build their own versions on top of Google’s “Android” with: manufacturer specific crud added, phone specific crud added, and often phone carrier specific crud added.
the difference is that Google is actually doing bad things, and you’re just sharing conjecture about something you believe MIGHT POSSIBLY happen at some point in the indeterminate future.
this is without even considering that the belief in question is supported by a new account, registered hours ago to post an accusation without any proof to back it up besides a random issue posted to a random Codeberg, that was created very recently by an account with no history, to share rumors about Tracfone.
do you believe every single thing people tell you? because if so, I have some oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you, and there’s a Nigerian prince who wants to finance it it, he just needs you to send me $10,000 so he can unlock his assets and send you $1,000,000.
deleted by creator
Maybe we find out the profit from including ads and spyware isn’t so much, and it all turns out great? Moto sees the chance to get on the right side of consumers and sells phones as a result.
Is this …conjecture? I will make two points.
- They might want to market the phones to security-minded people, say the banking sector, governments, etc. They have the funds to spend and have high stakes.
- GrapheneOS as it is now already gets flack for supposed backdoors in Pixels. The common response to that is that independent audits have shown that GrapheneOS phones are resistant to common penetration and surveillance attacks. No matter the hardware, independent audits are what makes people trust GrapheneOS. If future audits revise that trust, the community will just move forward.
Very tangential, but Android source code is getting a heavily delayed release, and this is harming projects like Graphene
