this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2025
414 points (99.5% liked)
Privacy
42958 readers
483 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Samsung s22 and s25, checking in. Graphene won't be viable for the vast, overwhelming majority of Android users today or in the coming seasons.
I hope people figure out some kind of virtualization/docker-containerization solution to the coming Goo-lag.
I'm still holding some hope that maybe Samsung's flavor of the OS won't have the restriction of requiring Google keys. Specially considering that Samsung has its own "Galaxy Store" with app submissions controlled by them, not Google.
Though it's possible they might simply extend the signatures accepted to include also the ones signed by them ^^U ..still I'm holding unto hope, because it would give them a competitive edge to remove the restriction so they might be incentivized to do it.
Would be nice, but I imagine that Samsung would both need to actually be impacted in an meaningful way with their store, and find some way to prevent Play Services (which they have to meet requirements to be able to load on their devices) from just nope-ing non-registered apps. Both of which I seriously doubt would happen.
They have already been working pretty close with Google on things that removed their actual Tizen OS from stuff like their watches in favor of merging their code into Android Wear OS. Would also guess that they might just work something out to either force apps on their store to be signed by Samsung and cleared by Google. Or that they just require apps on their store to only be listed after registering with Google. Not like Samsung really cares about supporting side-loading if the apps aren't in their (or Google's) store.
Sadly I think only a OEM like Samsung would have the massive levels of hardware sales and money for making a real fight against Google. F-Droid and other alt-stores or projects lack both and are easy to ignore. If Samsung were to be actually concerned about this, then I think we would have already seen them filing lawsuits and pushing posts/news articles condemning Google's plans like F-Droid keeps doing (aside from lawsuits due to money).
You are probably right.. it's just one hope I had, I'm not expecting it to happen, but I'll be hopeful until the end.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Nothing wrong with finding small hopes here and there where you can. I too had briefly thought about Samsung's store (I have an S24 Ultra, Tab S8+, and my old S20+) maybe being large and known enough by more users than F-Droid. But their lack of press releases pushing back on Google was what told me enough. If Samsung's store was actively used more than the Play Store on their phones (and had enough really popular apps that weren't also on the Play Store), then it would at least be something.
Sadly even if Samsung's store is able to somehow get a pass by Google, I highly doubt that the devs of apps that are only on F-Droid would list them on there. And would still only help Samsung devices (though I know I would start using Samsung's store a lot more if those devs did list them on there). Though I might find reasons to use my S20+ for some apps that I like having but don't use daily, and my tablet is on Android 15 so it will be used for stuff I use more often (never thought I would be excited for it to not get major updates).
The main actively used daily app that I am dreading losing (due to the current dev not planning to ever list their active fork on Play Store) is SyncThing-Fork on my Android devices (use different SyncThing apps for PC/Steam Deck). It has been the only multi-platform sync program that actually works correctly for my password vault on my Android devices. Though it is possible that the dev might get it whitelisted, but I am not going to hold my breath. As the main dilemma on a per app level is that the more apps that fall in line ends up supporting Google's actions, but at the same time not getting whitelisted means just going away (at least on fully updated Android 16+ devices).
I'm hopeful that the hackers will win. I will never underestimate the power of motivated, scorned engineers.
I mean, you can hack/root most devices, even right now. I expect that's not changing.
Probably by removing some google service or some other gimmick it can be bypassed
If they want a lot of play store banking apps + other things that opt into play protect to work they'll need to add the signature verification requirement.
Will the banks in Korea, EU and many other areas where Samsung phones are very common keep that restriction if it meant alienating that many users? I doubt it. That's why I think the support of a big player on this would be a killing move.
Also I'm not 100% convinced that it's impossible to have some verification without it depending on this one change.
That's a really good point, basically throw their weight around a bit eh?
I'm even willing to use the web apps or webpages for banking, if the browsers can make the handshakes. I'll forfeit using the bank first party apps, if their websites are full featured.
There are many other "uncertified" ROMs.
And the bootloader is now locked down across Samsung's ecosystem, as of this year. Sucks.
If you move to using an unsecured "chinaphone" as an alternative to the big three handset vendors, then it's unlikely they are target devices for the myriad of uncertified ROM's.
I think we are going to need software solutions that can run on major Androdis distributions across the variety of hardware.
I think we're going to need something like UTM or Docker (virtualization or containerization) for running our unsigned Android apps and services, and I don't know how feasible it will be.
Not following your logic here... With the mainstream devices now locked, "the myriad of uncertified ROMs" will necessarily shift to the remaining unlocked phones, or die out.
I think a viable future is owning two devices, one "certified" to access your banking and work apps, and one running GrapheneOS for your private life.
ROMs rarely work as one-size-fits-all-devices, yeah?
I only know of four smartphone categories of phones that are really available in the markets around the world today, en masse.
The big tentpole phones available from Samsung, Google, Moto, and maybe two other players.
Boutique devices from vendors like Nothing and Fairphone with limited reach to global markets (like, being Euro only, or being only distributed in markets that can buy into they ideology, etc). Nearly all of them prices or is MOST humans' reach.
Chinaphones. A mix of fly-by-night brands with ghost shifts in factories that make many varieties of phones with other people's designs, but have extremely limited first party support and probably zero ROM support from the global community ... And then the handful of tech markings like Xiami, HTC, Huawei, and anyone else that bends the knee to the CCP. Virtually no NA market penetration in this decade, and tremendous barrier for entry, for most of the Western world. Also, security issues galore.
iPhones.
All that to say, I don't think a more featured OS existed it's the way forward, with people all jockeying to make new ROM's for everyone to NOT be able to run on their phones.
I'm hopeful folks smarter than I will be able to come in about the potential for sandboxes in it phones with their own capacity for running unsigned apps, like a virtualization platform.
I literally named two different phone models, and I think dismissing that people are often bound to what handsets are available to them is ... Well, honestly just cruel.
Most of us don't have the cash to throw down for phones all the time and we need scalability to protect ALL of us, not just those of us cash flush.
My fingers are still crossed folks figure out some containerization or virtualization solution between now and the Goo-lag.
It’s better to work a few hours to buy a good device than waste thousands searching for a fantasy solution. Phones are bought rarely, not 'all the time'. If you can't afford basics, fix the money problem first, privacy can wait.
"Job" is a precious commodity for many of us.
You understand that people who live in the developing world, and have hostile governments that will weaponize Meta/Google's data and telemetry against them, ALSO deserve privacy and liberty with their devices too, right?
This is why I'm saying that being prescriptive about what hardware we use is not the end game.
It's going to have to come from the software platform.
Do you live in the developing world? Is your government banning this phone? How can we help others if we can’t help yourself?
I live in a country where the government is now weaponizing the mobile data on our phones to track us, and assault us. They have begun kidnapping citizens without due process and incarcerating people with legal status, without even filling charges.
These state agencies are buying tech that let's them follow people around by their phones, and the leading mobile platform companies are openly complicit with governments that assault their people.
When you ask if I'm living in the developing world, I travel international a lot but my home country is experiencing rapid decline, and they have banned several categories of phone manufacturers, most famously Huawei consumer products. Ironically, because that company is suspected of doing the same things that Google is doing (granting access to back-end services and data to government entities).
So it's really not about any one device.
The people affected by this state violence (a ) deserve privacy just like anyone else, and (b ) depend on their mobile devices for every part of their daily life just like everybody else.
Nobody can "help themselves" with a technology platform. It taken cooperation with others, to make systemic changes.
Again, I personally will be fine. I can buy a Chinaphone. Or I can fund a Linux project phone for myself. Or, gods help me, I could buy an iPhone.
But what about the people on the other end of the line? What good is one secure walkie talkie?
s22 and an s25, where's the cooperation and systemic change there?
I've responded, repeatedly, and at length to you. I've treated you like you want to be a responsible member of community. I've tried to treat you with benefit of the doubt.
You have generally replied with pithy, two-liner insults and red herrings. I feel comfortable now just disregarding you.
I hope someday you find your way to kindness.
If your rejecting solutions without offering one, you're not entitled to an thesis length reply. Anyone can write a long comment with ChatGPT.