• whatiswrongwithyou@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    That’s a pretty recent change, but I take your point that chip manufacturing with no ties to Israel may exist.

    To the main point, while it could be a good idea in theory to avoid devices with chips tied to Israel and the us, in practice that would lead people away from iphones and pixels that do best against graphite and cellebrite which would be bad.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      I don’t really see a problem with steering people away from iphones, but older pixels with graphineos are probably a safe enough device to own right now.

      • whatiswrongwithyou@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I mean, if your goal is to make people as safe from the police as possible as simply as possible then the cellebrite and graphite leaks would steer you towards the last few generations of pixels and any iphone that can get the latest os.

        That’s not to say graphene isn’t a fantastic choice, I use it daily and it’s secure from law enforcement hardware, just that the leaked capability matrixes consistently indicate that cops can’t break into appropriately secured iphones and specific android phones as well.

        Which is really useful knowledge to have and build your behaviors around that would be completely missed if someone were to base their choice of device around what doesn’t have Israeli connections first.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I mean if you base your choice of device around what doesn’t have Israeli connections first that means you’re not getting a phone built on the US/Israeli supply chain, and these do tend to be more secure. There’s a reason Huawei is banned in the US, and the US has been lobbying all the vassals to stop using Huawei gear. It’s not because they’re afraid of Chinese surveillance, but rather because Huawei doesn’t have American backdoors.

          • whatiswrongwithyou@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            From cellebrite’s own documentation (on the first page, of a sales pdf, which was the second or third google result):

            Supported devices include Huawei H1611, Xiaomi Mi 5, ZTE Z832 Sonata 3 and ZTE Z981 ZMax Pro

            I’m, again, not as familiar with huawei and xiaomi product lines and whatnot as I am with the iphones and pixels so I can’t speak to the popularity of specific ones implicated in just that bullet point and the doc I quoted from is at least seven years old, however I do know that many more chinese devices are accessible with these cop metasploit tools.

            The idea that backdoors can be grouped by what nation state intelligence apparatus has control over the manufacturing of the device in question is good reasoning when we have no other information to go off of. In this case though, there is a wealth of information public, leaked and from people who just can’t help but warthunder their classified documents in fights online.

            I would never suggest American/israeli tech power should be accepted as a net positive or reasonable compromise. What I want is for people to critically and carefully consider the devices they trust based on what we know about intelligence apparatuses ability to compromise them as opposed to the fog of information war.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 hour ago

              These are phones literally from a decade ago. Huawei H1611, Xiaomi Mi 5, and ZTE Z832 Sonata 3 were all released in 2016. This is not a serious argument.

              The idea that you want to avoid devices from known bad actors shouldn’t be controversial in any way. Devices developed using an independent tech stack will always be inherently safer.