No you fuck off!

But yes, your point that the wrong price point may create the illusion of no demand for privacy, hurting the ability to make lower cost non-spyware devices, is a good point. I simply hadn’t thought of that and only saw later comments about that idea.

I’m not sure of the answer. There are some good suggestions other people gave.

I’m not bootlicking anything. I have no relationship with the Graphene project and the only time I tried to find out more about the project I was quickly banned for some reason. I think being pissed at open source developers who give away software for free is crazy as fuck.

So many of you are being so irrational and ungrateful. Do you know how much work the Graphene team likely did to make this happen? This means Graphene is less dependent on Google hardware in order to exist (ie, if Google decides to lock bootloaders in future Pixel models it won’t end the project). An expensive high-end phone brings along rich people and corporate users who will hopefully donate to the project. The engineers at the Graphene project work so much and it would be nice to see more appreciation.

No one is being forced to buy this highest end model. There are plenty of Pixels they support and will continue to support and they likely they will support other models that will be much cheaper over time. If you don’t want to buy a $2K phone, don’t buy this model. Problem solved! Or wait for more people to be selling this phone used and buy a used version of this model. Also, having this much RAM means that it’s more likely this can run virtualized ARM operating systems and can work like a desktop when plugged in, although I am not sure if it can do that.

https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/cbc-tutanota-tuta-is-a-honeypot/14978/9

Why would a government employee, being charged with a crime, randomly make up lies about tutanota, now Tuta?

The likely answer is he didn’t make up lies and wanted to expose an operation as revenge for them charging him with a crime, which he thought he would likely be convicted of.

Cameron Ortis did actually get 14 years in prison. So if this were merely a disinformation campaign, why did he end up in prison?

For this accusation to be false, you need it to be true that Ortis randomly decided to lie about Tutanota (now Tuta) during a trial or had some incentive to lie during trial to spread misinformation about Tuta. However, there was no plea deal in this case. He was granted day parole in September of 2026, but I don’t know that much about Canadian prisons or law and if this would be considered unusual.

The fact that Tutanota rebranded to Tuta nearly immediately after this (to make it harder for regular people searching for this to discover it) is also suspicious.

This is a good point. AI vibe-coded stuff that hasn’t been pentested being pushed in a product promising security and privacy is genuinely terrible. Perhaps that one thing is so terrible it should rightfully overshadow everything else because of the risks involved.

I sort of get where he is coming from. AI has made shockingly fast rapid advances in being able to code. AI code should definitely be pentested, even if it’s just with more AI.

There are many developers and tech privacy enthusiasts who hate AI coding for whatever reason, and I get his perspective. He just isn’t being very strategic because he’s acting like a normal CEO and not caring that much about emotional impact because he’s in a leadership position, forgetting that a privacy-focused user base will not tolerate typical CEO behavior.

I already have real fears regarding Proton. What sort of privacy company doesn’t accept Monero??? What sort of privacy company uses US-based Zendesk which could be required to cooperate with a police state with a secret dragnet warrant??? Proton has a very active fraud/abuse detection system. Even if it is necessary, how could that be technically possible if messages are encrypted???

But we should also remember that if you are a poor person in a repressed regime, you can get free Proton services to help get you more access to information. They are very nice about that. Who made that choice so that a poor person in a poor country can get these services for free if they are poor? Andy Yen made that decision.

People make mistakes and if Andy Yen realizes he needs to be more emotionally intelligent and aware and tries to change, perhaps people should be willing to forgive him. Proton does a lot of good overall despite recent concerning behavior.

I will also add that it’s concerning that their AI Lumo is integrated into so much potentially and it’s not clear where the processing occurs, if the processing itself is encrypted during the processing, and what models are used. For example, if Lumo is using US-based company data centers in the US and the model has to be given unencrypted data to process, then in theory if there’s a gag-order demand on the data center, all of that information can be extracted. I see very little information about that, which is concerning.

deleted by creator

It’s very easy to believe “oh, if I were raped I would fight back and if it still happened I would report it.” It’s only after something like that happens that a person thinks (possible trigger warning)

etc. I don’t know if it’s actually malicious when some people don’t believe victims; it’s just some people can’t envision not reporting things immediately.

What is ironic is even when a victim is “perfect,” by the time they realize they want to report what happened, that perfection may be gone.

Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal standard. This was a civil case and was just about what was more believable. Some people found her credible, apparently.

I think if you made up a rape claim that had no basis in reality to target someone rich and white, you probably wouldn’t have credible details about what happened, a history with that person that seemed credible, or a history of being an honest person. But yes, it is sometimes hard to know who is telling the truth.

Not every claim is true. Personally, I don’t know enough to know if it’s true or not.

I’m not saying it’s true or not true, but what exactly would she need to show to prove it’s credible? Like what would be the credible version of this if a similar situation occurred and it was completely true? How would it seem different?

It makes sense the case was dismissed if she wouldn’t do the examination.

But plenty of people would avoid a psychiatric exam just because of fear of psychiatry. In order to commit someone or give them a new diagnosis, a psychiatrist has to meet with someone. It’s also possible that the independent examiner could also request all her private psychiatric records and that those could include personal things she didn’t want disclosed. She could have told a therapist she didn’t like a parent or told a therapist one of her friends is a kleptomaniac and didn’t want people to know.

She also, based on her online posts, clearly is afraid of being killed and someone making it look like she was just unstable. And this is in the shadow of that open AI whistleblower mysteriously “committing suicide” when everyone who knows him thinks he wouldn’t do that. I am just saying she may have valid fears, like such an examination being used to try to commit her when that isn’t appropriate. Keep in mind, psychiatry was awarded the Nobel Prize for lobotomies less than 100 years ago ago (or technically a psychiatrist was, but lobotomies were widely praised and embraced by the profession for decades). It’s not exactly a profession that is a paragon of ethics that admits to being wrong when it is.

I don’t know what her experiences have been, I just think we can’t know her reasons for not doing this exam.

This happened so long ago. What clear proof should she have from back then that she doesn’t? It also seems like her family was helping her financially and she was in a position to get a lot of financial help and filing suit might make that less likely. You’re also saying this is about a pay day, but given the length of time, it’s not like she could file criminal charges that could get prosecuted. A civil suit was all she had.

This is a really smart take on things.