On most things yes, but imagine this, if your data is collected and indexed upon by a super centralized AI system that can work on command, there's no real private equivalent to that which works the same, qualitatively. But I do get your point, its not a tradeoff for most things. We can have both in most places.

I 100% agree with you

everything, even privacy, comes down to user experience. UX is always the key.

I agree with this. I think the problem isn't that these are at odds, its that the development and time spent on things that are private AND convenient just pales in comparison to the time and capital spent on things that re convenient and invasive... and those who understand none of this just buy the most convenient thing. They are easy prey for the data miners. View quoted note →

Lol I've been modding Android phones since around the time they were released. I was finding goofy exploits for service providers. It was the wild west. GrapheneOS has made it about as convenient as possible. A child can install it these days. They even allow you GPS and Store if you really want them. Maybe I'm biased from experience, the any inconvenience in GOS is so minimal I can't even think of an example for devil's advocate.

Here's one, I accidentally nuked my phone back to factory once because of a bug in one of the security features. Or it was just poorly explained. That was a fucking headache. But things have improved since then.

I think GrapheneOS is still quite far from a convenient experience. Mostly because it confuses permission requests with privacy concerns. Permissions on Android don't necessarily affect the user's privacy. Focusing too much on Android Permissions takes time away from true privacy issues, like always-on tracking.

And I'm pretty demanding from a UI/UX perspective. The worst parts are some of the stock apps that haven't been updated much in years, but those can be replaced.

This gets into subjective territory. It depends on what someone considers convenient. I found stock Android far less convenient because so much shit got in my way that I didn't want. Can things be improved? Probably. But if we just make it the exact same as the alternatives, are we left with an alternative? Something has to be inconvenient to someone.

As for permissions, I've always had mixed feelings about them, but if they're there, shouldn't users be paying attention to them? How does an application tracking location, accessing mic or audio not a privacy issue?

The problem IMO is that devs (especially FOSS ones) ship products with target audience *other developers* instead of users. That makes them quite detached from market realities unfortunately. View quoted note →

I still think this depends who you ask. Some people will define convenience such that privacy (by some standards) isnt even possible nor desired. I work with several people who have apps that track exact locations for their friends, and their friends can see their location. I consider this an invasion and wouldn't like it. We get into how one even defines privacy. These people probably wouldn't let their friends watch them in the restroom, but don't care about everyone knowing everyone else's location 24/7. They consider this a convenience and probably wouldn't like a device that prevented it or the tracking capabilities necessary to do it. Most things can be improved, but I don't see an easy way to measure convenience and privacy in a sufficiently objective way to claim that both have been acheived for a person.

I use graphene, android auto was aids, banking apps don't work despite giving them all the special permissions possible. Besides that it's smooth af

Some people will have to undo defaults for conveince, and others will benefit from those defaults for privacy. It's a pretty tough problem for any software.

Many of those apps need Graphene to be invasive stock Android to work. That's on the application developer for demanding that Google control your device completely for their app to work. My banking app works perfectly without Google services and with most permissions denied. They gave me convenience without subjecting me to Google's cage. If that was @Vitor Pamplona s main point then I missed it. I agree. But a lot of inconvenience comes down to application and service developer choices. Graphene can't fix those, even if it can be improved (it probably can be).

Privacy against widespread surveillance implies protecting yourself which is always extra work. While it is not a blocker it does demand additional resources to match the convenience (which also lack due to the current economic incentive to surveil). There are exceptions, sure, but not the rule. What's easier, connecting directly to an ISP or have to use a VPN or Tor? Privacy is also an asymmetric battle in favor of the attacker, it costs less to attack than to defend. One link broken and the privacy chain is broken. You can't undo the spread of information.

> which is always extra work. Not necessarily. The system can protect the user by default without asking repetitive questions to allow the user to control it. Essentially privacy != low level control

I interpreted it from a user perspective. Using graphene for more privacy but at cost of wrangling android auto settings for an hour

understanding the history of the Internet and the age that many were when they started using it, a culture of taking care of your data online was simply never encouraged, because many of us, from a young age, unconsciously, ended up adopting a vision that we cannot do anything to take care of ourselves in Internet that many simply gave up and simply began to give up all their data without any limits, that now the authorities are very accustomed to this flow of information that they will do whatever it takes so that this flow of data does not decrease.

I agree with the sentiment.... Privacy is a design choice, and can exist "on the backend" of a seamless user experience. Take HTTPS ; now just the standard for practically all connections. But in this case, "the work" is unpaid volunteer effort, vs the Fiat Billions being pumped into making mobile operating system platforms amenable to both corporate and State "surveillance capitalism."

Yeah that's an important point, there's a cultural aspect of nihilism about privacy, particularly among "gen Alpha" or whatever. "And besides, I want to grow up to be an inflooooencer anyway, so what do I care about privacy?" Such a contrast to early internet, I.e the 90's, "OMG watch out there are crazy people on the internet!"

Absolutely. Convience is an unlock for continued innovation. We need both convenience and privacy.

👍👍👍👍