That website is an excellent resource, but they can’t just expect everyone to have money for a pixel, even if privacy is a priority for me and many people, a pixel is just beyond the reach of the large majority of internet users.
Instead they need to make a curated list of less than ideal but still better than stock alternatives, or else people will just give up and get stock android instead.
I used to think like this. However, if someone says, “The most expensive phone I can afford is embedded with unremovable Israeli spyware, and there is no operating system that is open-source and receives regular security patches available for it, and I can’t afford to pay for internet access, so I use the platform that only lets me access Facebook”, I’m not sure that there’s much I can do to help them. If someone said, “Can I use a phone that costs less because it’s subsidized by Facebook while being protected from malware and surveillance?” I’d respond with, “The answer is probably ‘no’”.
I’m sure that it’s possible to be in a situation where the only choice is to have no internet access at all or to use the internet in a way that makes one vulnerable to surveillance, and I think it’s likely that getting more money is the most reliable cure for that situation (and it might be true that no other cure exists).
privacyguides.org probably has a target audience of people that are being actively targeted by sophisticated government actors, and displaying information about a measure that is inferior to another measure in every way other than cost would make it more likely that someone would use the inferior measure in an inappropriate situation, and that could cause someone to be in physical danger, so it’s probably best to just not mention any measure unless it might be superior to all other measures in some situation (without considering monetary cost). For people that are subject to less physical danger but more cost restrictions, it’d probably be better to have a separate website. I do think that such a website would probably have less funding available (since privacyguides.org will probably receive funding from the audience that is mostly unencumbered by resource constraints, so any other website will probably receive less funding) and therefore less expertise available, which would be regrettable (since I do have old phones that I’d like to make more secure).
There was a time when there was no formal recommendation for computing hardware from privacyguides.org at all, so having one at all is an improvement compared to the past. It’s unfortunate that there aren’t two options that meet the documented criteria, but having one is better than having none.
For now, the best we can hope for is probably a phone model that meets relevant criteria (or where the only unmet criteria could be met due to new software being made available) becoming more popular, such that its price comes down due to having an economy of scale. Hopefully that will be a phone model not influenced by Google.
Yes, considering the average westerner’s privacy is essentially exploited by Google every single day, telling the privacy-conscious person to just shut up and buy the Google phone without discussing alternatives makes this website read like it’s just another ad on an internet filled with ads.
It’s interesting how this site hides their direct and clear recommendation to de-Google the Google phone on a completely different page from their recommendation to buy the Google phone, which is much more vague on the matter at best. Maybe it really is an ad after all.
The “mobile-phones” page is currently quite coupled to Google Pixel phones right now. I would prefer for there to be another type of phone that has been found to be suitable to use, but in the meantime while that is not the case it’s probably better to have a page that explains Google Pixel phones in a great amount of detail and indicates that information about Recommended Android Distributions is important.
Pixels are also running on poor hardware. This has always been the case, but recent releases are showing really poor cpu performance compared to competitors.
Edit: for example, the OnePlus 13 that was released 8 months before the Pixel 10 Pro is 40%+ faster, and $150-250 cheaper. The battery is also 20% lower capacity.
That website is an excellent resource, but they can’t just expect everyone to have money for a pixel, even if privacy is a priority for me and many people, a pixel is just beyond the reach of the large majority of internet users.
Instead they need to make a curated list of less than ideal but still better than stock alternatives, or else people will just give up and get stock android instead.
I used to think like this. However, if someone says, “The most expensive phone I can afford is embedded with unremovable Israeli spyware, and there is no operating system that is open-source and receives regular security patches available for it, and I can’t afford to pay for internet access, so I use the platform that only lets me access Facebook”, I’m not sure that there’s much I can do to help them. If someone said, “Can I use a phone that costs less because it’s subsidized by Facebook while being protected from malware and surveillance?” I’d respond with, “The answer is probably ‘no’”. I’m sure that it’s possible to be in a situation where the only choice is to have no internet access at all or to use the internet in a way that makes one vulnerable to surveillance, and I think it’s likely that getting more money is the most reliable cure for that situation (and it might be true that no other cure exists).
privacyguides.org probably has a target audience of people that are being actively targeted by sophisticated government actors, and displaying information about a measure that is inferior to another measure in every way other than cost would make it more likely that someone would use the inferior measure in an inappropriate situation, and that could cause someone to be in physical danger, so it’s probably best to just not mention any measure unless it might be superior to all other measures in some situation (without considering monetary cost). For people that are subject to less physical danger but more cost restrictions, it’d probably be better to have a separate website. I do think that such a website would probably have less funding available (since privacyguides.org will probably receive funding from the audience that is mostly unencumbered by resource constraints, so any other website will probably receive less funding) and therefore less expertise available, which would be regrettable (since I do have old phones that I’d like to make more secure).
There was a time when there was no formal recommendation for computing hardware from privacyguides.org at all, so having one at all is an improvement compared to the past. It’s unfortunate that there aren’t two options that meet the documented criteria, but having one is better than having none. For now, the best we can hope for is probably a phone model that meets relevant criteria (or where the only unmet criteria could be met due to new software being made available) becoming more popular, such that its price comes down due to having an economy of scale. Hopefully that will be a phone model not influenced by Google.
deleted by creator
Yes, considering the average westerner’s privacy is essentially exploited by Google every single day, telling the privacy-conscious person to just shut up and buy the Google phone without discussing alternatives makes this website read like it’s just another ad on an internet filled with ads.
Your reference to Google makes me think you didn’t absorb all the available information.
It’s interesting how this site hides their direct and clear recommendation to de-Google the Google phone on a completely different page from their recommendation to buy the Google phone, which is much more vague on the matter at best. Maybe it really is an ad after all.
Having one page for each topic and providing a link to a relevant page when it’s useful means that it’s less likely that contradictory or outdated information will be provided. The link to the “android distributions” page is currently quite prominent: https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org/blame/78726b4c4af8bee974559398c1920ea0f65cd2dc/docs/mobile-phones.md#L37
The “mobile-phones” page is currently quite coupled to Google Pixel phones right now. I would prefer for there to be another type of phone that has been found to be suitable to use, but in the meantime while that is not the case it’s probably better to have a page that explains Google Pixel phones in a great amount of detail and indicates that information about Recommended Android Distributions is important.
Yes that’s all well and good for programming computer code, but that’s not how making arguments through human-readable prose works.
pixels are supported for 7 years now, and older second-hand phone is still an option. but agree on privacy being a spectrum and not an absolute.
Pixels are also running on poor hardware. This has always been the case, but recent releases are showing really poor cpu performance compared to competitors.
Edit: for example, the OnePlus 13 that was released 8 months before the Pixel 10 Pro is 40%+ faster, and $150-250 cheaper. The battery is also 20% lower capacity.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for stating a fact, because Pixel hasn’t had competitive hardware for several iterations now.