zlacker

>>madars+(OP)
Maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight, but I always thought it was interesting that Graphene OS places so much blind trust in a proprietary black box security chip from Google that they pinky-promised to open source but never did.

>>ranger+hg
If you think the org that produced the hardware might have backdoored it, architecting your software to avoid the TPM or whatever is dumb. Targeting Google HW at all is an unavoidable act of complete trust so you might as well use the HW properly.

Also, why would Google bother backdooring their special HW when 99.999% of its users are anyway gonna be running a totally Google-controlled proprietary SW stack?

>>bjackm+Zn
> Targeting Google HW at all is an unavoidable act of complete trust

Doesn't the existence of FHE downgrade that to just "complete practical trust" at least? Not that I know of it being employed, but that it could be, and that it may be worth shouting out exactly cause of how niche and impractical it is.