Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users
Posted by microtonal 8 hours ago
Comments
Comment by moooo99 6 hours ago
I got an offer from a dealer three weeks ago and was going to order the car, then the API for the community integration got turned off. I decided to hold back and see what comes from it. Now this, which ultimately - since I am a GrapheneOS user - makes me completely cancel my plans.
I really do not understand VWs thinking here. It would cost them little to nothing to continue not blocking the the inofficial API and not block GrapheneOS (or other non Play Protect androids) users. It would have no adverse effects on the average Joe, but it would gain a lot of support and enthusiasm from heavy users, differentiating from other brands. Not to mention the fact that it is the USERS data in the first place
Comment by this_user 6 hours ago
Obviously, the chances of that are virtually zero. But they'd rather make their product worse than assume with any kind of risk, even if it is virtually zero. That is simply the way in which German enterprises operate.
Comment by anonymousiam 5 hours ago
If their APIs are done correctly, they shouldn't be afraid to expose them.
Comment by okanat 3 hours ago
When they leave the "security" to the platform they can blame them in a lawsuit.
Comment by nightpool 1 hour ago
Comment by plaguuuuuu 32 minutes ago
Comment by hparadiz 31 minutes ago
Comment by iamnothere 1 hour ago
Comment by user3939382 6 hours ago
Comment by xenocratus 6 hours ago
Comment by CuriouslyC 5 hours ago
Comment by zie 5 hours ago
Comment by zelphirkalt 3 hours ago
Comment by zie 2 hours ago
Clearly the engineering team didn't know ahead of time that Electrify America would be the end result of dieselgate. Had they known, perhaps they would have been more eager to do the engineering work though! haha
It was just a fun inside joke, since nobody could have assumed the fines would create Electrify America. Personally I'm glad Electrify America exists, though the way it happened was probably not the best path to get here.
EA even has successfully moved on from just being an org forced into existence and are actively trying to take care of customers and produce a good product now that they have some competition.
Comment by jimmydddd 2 hours ago
Comment by SecretDreams 2 hours ago
Comment by this_user 5 hours ago
But the reality is that every once in a while you have a scandal like this or something like Wirecard, and it happens, because the culture is such that absolutely nobody thinks it possible. That includes officials and regulators whose first instinct will often be to come after the people trying to expose the scandal, as has happened in the case of Wirecard.
Comment by joe_mamba 5 hours ago
Only naive laymen or newcomers to Germany think it's not possible. German business leaders, lawyers and politicians know exactly how much corruption and scamming is going on in the business sector, and it's not a little.
>first instinct will often be to come after the people trying to expose the scandal, as has happened in the case of Wirecard.
That was purely malicious to try to protect Wirecard, not because the regulators couldn't possibly imagine corruption and law breaking exists, that was the story they used as cover for their corruption.
Like you're a regulator and instead of doing the thing you were hired for and look at the evidence The Economist showed you, you instead "use your instincts" to decide not to do your job and not look into Wirecard because you can't imagine something bad can ever happen? Come on! All those regulators should have been fired and tried for corruption and/or accessory to crime.
Comment by joe_mamba 5 hours ago
In fact, that's how a lot of compliance works in industries where there's little little enforcement and relies a lot on self regulation.
Comment by formerly_proven 5 hours ago
Comment by Perseids 3 hours ago
Comment by neya 5 hours ago
Comment by bri3d 3 hours ago
And VW didn't single-handedly destroy the diesel market; economics and physics did. Almost every other manufacturer was also fudging the tests results in some way. But more importantly, building a passenger car diesel that meets NOx targets doesn't work; by the time a passenger car diesel meets modern NOx targets honestly, the car contains a ludicrous precious metal loading in the catalyst and is only a few percentage points more efficient in terms of consumption and CO2 emissions than a petrol car and the math doesn't add up. Diesel is just not a practical solution for passenger cars; it never was in most ways, but it took the EU a long time to restrict NOx pollution to a sustainable level and expose the physical issues at hand.
Comment by dreamcompiler 2 hours ago
VW knew this but lied to customers and told them they could have both. Dieselgate was their attempt to convince everybody the lie was true.
Comment by adrianN 5 hours ago
Comment by zelphirkalt 3 hours ago
Comment by donkers 3 hours ago
Comment by moooo99 3 hours ago
Comment by thyristan 4 hours ago
In Dieselgate VW got caught, made the supervisory authorities and politicians look bad, which is why the authorities also weren't inclined to sweep it under the rug completely. They just shielded VW from the financial consequences in Germany (German VW customers got shafted).
Blocking GrapheneOS is the useless "pretending" part of compliance. They don't really want to do security, because that would cost money, so they pick some actions that seem drastic, harsh and don't cost them anything to implement. Later, when there is a security incident, they will point to their huge heap of pretend compliance, whine a bit about state sponsored actors, high criminal intent and other obvious deflecting bullshit. But they will get away with it, because they did the compliance dance, so they are obviously compliant and did nothing wrong. Nobody in authority will look twice als long as they are neither annoyed or made to look bad.
tl;dr: compliance in Germany is performative
Comment by OsrsNeedsf2P 6 hours ago
Comment by riedel 5 hours ago
The company's have done their thing to ensure that the average guy wouldn't even try escaping their lock-in. So chances are becoming smaller and smaller to hope for a critical mass of users to complain.
Comment by znort_ 1 hour ago
specially because no car really supports grapheneos, but it can be used in any car supporting regular android provided google play is installed which ensures google's certification and validation is being preserved. if i get this right bmw is actively blocking this, which would be just a dick move.
Comment by echelon 6 hours ago
Vendor lock-in to Play services is ridiculous.
A car is a big purchase, and ideally not something I discard after a few years. I'd like it to not treat me like a second-class citizen and renter who can't make decisions over how to extend the life of my purchase.
Comment by zamadatix 6 hours ago
Comment by Lio 4 hours ago
However, VW just seem to make gaff after gaff. Collecting information they shouldn't, exposing information they shouldn't have to hackers via lax security practices.
How many rakes can a company step on?
Now, they're blocking GapheneOS? They've got two hopes of selling me another 'Dub.
(Bob and No).
Comment by scns 57 minutes ago
All of em.
Comment by nicce 2 hours ago
Make sure that dealers know why you changed your mind.
Comment by hydrogen7800 2 hours ago
"Some nerd couldn't use their nerd phone."
What incentive does a dealer have to know or care about this?
Comment by LollipopYakuza 1 hour ago
Comment by sowbug 1 hour ago
Comment by unethical_ban 1 hour ago
Comment by bojan 6 hours ago
Comment by goobatrooba 2 hours ago
Peugeot is reasonable and works. Charging could be faster and WLTP longer, and once I had the screens restart while on the motorway which thankfully did not affect driving but was pretty terrifying. All that to say - go ahead and buy European. You'll have some issues but for me all better than to get a china car with who knows what data exfiltration and hidden issues, or a Tesla that will lock you in when the car burns. EU companies are too boring to spy and too risk averse to have tesla-like issues..
Comment by bogeholm 5 hours ago
If you don’t want/need a new car, the used car market in Germany is pretty active with EQAs and EQBs.
Comment by FabCH 4 hours ago
Not quite an SUV, but maybe fits the same use case?
Comment by joe_mamba 6 hours ago
Comment by abyssin 6 hours ago
Comment by isoprophlex 5 hours ago
Comment by nickserv 5 hours ago
Comment by jp191919 3 hours ago
Comment by oaiey 5 hours ago
So understanding why they drop it is IMHO easy. Understanding why they use only attestation based API despite and forcing their third party ecosystem out is stupid. Companies do not understand open communities.
Comment by y-c-o-m-b 6 hours ago
You should definitely reevaluate how you constructed your list. VW has a history of being scummy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal) and their ICE cars are notorious for being unreliable compared to the Japanese car-makers. To be fair, EVs do change the equation a bit, but given their scandal plagued past, there's no way I would put them at the top of any list.
Comment by michalhosna 5 hours ago
I always read this online, but my personal experience in EU doesn't match that at all in quite a sample of people and cars over the last ~15 years. At least not for older cards. The reliability after 100k km seems to be somewhat similar.
The repairability of VW-group stuff in 3rd party services is soo much better and cheaper. The WV-group is huge and many models across the brands share same parts and full engines. There exist non-OEM alternatives and people know how to fix those cars.
I have never bought new car. But driving anything but VW got expensive fast.
Toyota cars can have bespoke parts even between different months of the same year for the same model. Continuous improvement isn't really that cool for cars.
Comment by erxam 3 hours ago
Outside Western Europe, VW is priced like a premium upmarket brand (not quite luxury). Maintenance and general upkeep for a VW are easily two to three times the cost of an equivalent Japanese car.
Which wouldn't be an issue if the cars were actually built to their price point. But the VW cars we get here are shittier versions built in nasty factories. They break down if you look at them wrong. The build quality is nonexistent. They are absolutely an awful deal, no matter how you look at them. You also have to personally import parts from wherever they're available, because otherwise only the dealerships have parts and they are absurdly overpriced.
Also, European brands are afraid of exporting EVs. If you want an EV, you buy a Chinese car. There is no other option. It is as simple as that.
Comment by brikym 1 hour ago
Comment by moooo99 3 hours ago
Putting these factors aside: they are usually cheaper than their peers in insurance and they have dealerships absolutely everywhere. I've had multiple Skoda and VW EV rentals and the experience has been nothing but pleasant. Hence my priorities.
Comment by jstanley 6 hours ago
Comment by bogeholm 5 hours ago
Comment by bluGill 4 hours ago
That is why so many rich fly private jets to environment conferences. People put Greenpeace and similar bumper stickers on their SUVs that never go off road and rarely have more than one person inside. They care about the environment, but only when it doesn't impact anything else in their life.
Comment by plqbfbv 2 hours ago
Emissions scale with performance, and inversely of fuel efficiency. So the environment may not be the most important point, but I'm pretty sure fuel efficiency is high on the list when you're picking a compact or long-range car that is supposed to be fuel efficient.
Also, by advertising as compliant to green specs something that wasn't, means people may have been swayed to purchase irregular cars despite them not being really green, only due to the fact that they may have received rebates and contributions for the purchase, regardless of whether "being greener" ranked high on their decision metrics.
Comment by teamonkey 2 hours ago
I was lied to. Had I known that was the case there is a good chance I would have gone with a different car.
My car was recalled and reprogrammed and it no longer had the torque it had at first.
Of course now it’s clear that most if not all manufacturers were doing the same trick, they just weren’t caught at it.
Comment by jstanley 4 hours ago
Comment by B1FF_PSUVM 2 hours ago
It wasn't "more CO2" grade, it was "more NOx" grade. This in urban settings will actually kill more people with respiratory problems.
VW's "clever hack" probably, statistically, killed people.
Comment by formerly_proven 5 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_device
Comment by netsharc 4 hours ago
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/24/uk-franc...
Of course the governments probably lobbied for this stuff because it improves their car industry tax profits/employment numbers.
Comment by joe_mamba 5 hours ago
Comment by gslepak 6 hours ago
It's an easy market to win at this point. The bar has been lowered so much. Already have a nice car? Just don't display utter disdain for your user's privacy and you get our $$.
Comment by Hikikomori 4 hours ago
Comment by moooo99 2 hours ago
I have test driven the Kia EV4 and EV3, but I am not a huge fan. I do not enjoy the look of the EV3 and while the EV4 was a nice drive, I kept bumping my leg against the direction selector (which is below the handle for the wipers; But this is a huge nitpick since I am fairly tall, so not really an issue for 99% of drivers).
The main issue with Kia across the board is that their are so darn expensive for insurance. At my current provider, the EV4s insurance would have been 500 EUR more expensive than an roughly equally priced Cupra Born.
Not a huge SUV fan, but the Skoda Elroq and Skoda Enyaq were very nice vehicles as well
Comment by Hikikomori 1 hour ago
Comment by miohtama 1 hour ago
Comment by aka13_404 7 hours ago
The "app" they provide is 60% advertisement, 30% features, and I unironically preferred using a Home Assistant connection instead of of it for everything. Even for automations like "when to preheat the car", since that was easier and more intuitive outside of their native function.
This also means, that charge control from the cars side is not possible to automate anymore.
Sure, one could take the position "but it was never officially promised", but for some people, including me, having the api (which is paid btw) was a selling point.
Yes, I registered specifically for this comment.
Comment by winstonp 2 hours ago
Comment by Gigachad 46 seconds ago
Comment by subscribed 6 hours ago
There's enough of users to start making a difference. Really, even a low effort action raising valid concerns (security theater, a lie, google's monopolistic position, anti-competitive, etc), keywords that will make their response more careful and potential complaint to the regulator more impactful.
Comment by helterskelter 6 hours ago
In a similar vein, I once met a woman who told me how she would enter every single one of those stupid contests that you'd see printed on cereal boxes and ice cream containers because literally five people enter into those things, so you're odds of winning are surprisingly high. Apparently she won a bunch of them, but her favorite was when got a week long vacation that included going on a fishing trip with Ben and Jerry of "Ben and Jerry's".
Comment by helterskelter 2 hours ago
Comment by themafia 4 hours ago
Comment by mrhottakes 2 hours ago
Comment by themafia 1 hour ago
Comment by dreamcompiler 2 hours ago
I wonder if this is a result of Rivian writing VW's software or if that effort hasn't yet borne fruit.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivian_and_Volkswagen_Group_Te...
Comment by z3c0 6 hours ago
I've slowly but surely been moving away from any service provider of any type who does not allow me to use their service without their often Play Services-dependent app. Changing vehicles would be a lot harder though.
Comment by strcat 5 hours ago
Comment by afarah1 7 hours ago
Comment by fodkodrasz 2 hours ago
Comment by Grollicus 1 hour ago
- beeps about the speed limit, especially if it misses a sign. For example every time starting on a parking lot it keeps the 5 kph even after multiple turns
- warns about leaving the lane, including trying to stay on the lane by slightly couter steering while ignoring yellow construction lines
- Sometimes when moving off from a standstill in a queue, it triggers all "careful you're about to crash into something"-warnings. I suspect it's detecting exhaust gasses from a car in front?
- You must not, ever, touch the turn signal to announce your will switch lanes soon, while there is still a car next to you. You'll get a loud, obnoxious warning tone. This one is especially annoing as it makes sleeping as a passenger on the autobahn basically impossible.
Comment by gib444 1 hour ago
Which people often do when sharing the driving on long drives. So, another case of it making driving more dangerous, if the spare driver can not rest properly.
Comment by Matumio 4 hours ago
I'm not arguing that the modem should be mandatory, or that you shouldn't be able to control what it does. But forcing car vendors who want to built in a modem to make this modem do an automatic emergency call by default, that seems quite sensible. Even more sensible would be if the modem did nothing unless you allow it, except when it detects that crash, but... profits.
Comment by techpression 6 hours ago
Comment by iroddis 6 hours ago
When I talked to the dealers, they said that the speedometers only have to be accurate +/- 10% according to the SAE specifications.
After DieselGate I assumed that the high reading was to game the fuel consumption game.
Never again, VW auto group…
Comment by martinpw 2 hours ago
I believe the requirement is only one way - they can read high by a certain % but they cannot read low. Which makes sense. But that means in reality they will usually read a little high.
Comment by gene91 1 hour ago
Comment by jabroni_salad 5 hours ago
Comment by embedding-shape 2 hours ago
Comment by mnw21cam 8 minutes ago
Comment by embedding-shape 1 minute ago
Comment by storus 5 hours ago
Comment by martinpw 2 hours ago
I guess you just filter it out after a while but it definitely makes me think I need to do some research before getting a new car any time soon.
Comment by lnsru 6 hours ago
Comment by lisper 6 hours ago
Comment by gib444 2 hours ago
Absolutely agree! After a few minutes you realise you forgot to disable one of the 'features' and then get distracted trying to do that.
Lane keep assist is broken and dangerous
Auto high beam assist is broken and dangerous
Auto cruise control is broken and dangerous
Collision detection-avoidance is broken and dangerous (thinks you're going to crash quite often in our narrow, built-up areas in the UK)
Speed sign detection is broken
Hell, even automatic wipers, after all these years, is far from perfect. I feel they should have had to prove themselves with that before being given anything more important
Comment by virgilp 1 hour ago
Comment by gib444 1 hour ago
But some personal examples:
- Auto high beam assist saw a car at a side junction, turned off high beam, then turned back on, mimicking a 'flash' to let the car out, which they acted on by pulling out. I had to brake hard to avoid them. I was doing 60 mph
- I was on the motorway and a stranded vehicle was on the hard shoulder and the driver decided to exit from the side closest to my lane. I went to move over slightly to give space and avoid him, and the lane assist pushed me back towards him (there was too much traffic for me to change lanes)
- Driving in built-up areas with lots of parked cars and narrow sections, the collision avoidance has pre-activated with huge beeping warnings that massively distracted me, causing me to actually nearly hit something
These were all different modern (but not high end) vehicles
Auto cruise control doesn't take into account vehicles in other lanes etc. It encourages disengagement in dangerous situations/surroundings. It is by definition dangerous
edit: and speed sign detection is probably the most broken. The constant beeping and flashing. I mean, I don't have to explain that do I? Distraction -> danger.
Comment by mnw21cam 2 minutes ago
Comment by AJRF 7 hours ago
- Buy Pixel, Get Graphene
- Use FDroid, don't sign up for Google Play, download Tor browser
- Censorship resistant access to the internet without handing over your ID.
Pixel being a fairly popular phone in the UK is the interesting bit - if you had to buy some niche device I couldn't see it hitting more than a few hundred people doing it, but there are likely 100k pixels in the UK, and it's still possible to buy one and put Graphene on it.The squeeze on the free internet happened so quick by the UK (well it took years of indifference and a failure to enshrine protections - but once they started moving the did so super fast)
Realistically we're speed running ID being tied to internet usage - create your escape hatch while you can!
Comment by leoedin 7 hours ago
It's scary how quickly the banning is moving. The problem is what happens next. When they realise that banning things doesn't really work. The next logical step is severely limiting internet traffic.
Comment by lifty 5 hours ago
Comment by torginus 5 hours ago
Comment by jasonvorhe 6 hours ago
Comment by rjsw 6 hours ago
Comment by altairprime 6 hours ago
One dual-boots to a reputable Linux vendor’s signed/sealed OS image with secure boot enabled in BIOS, so that the attestations are valid; financially supports said vendor; contacts them quarterly with check-ins on the status of their lockdown+attestation roadmap and uses professional journalism approaches to highlight their (in/)action; and, contacts one’s relevant governing body to petition for the addition of that vendor’s signed/sealed product line to be added to the authorized signatures list by both government-sponsored apps and to the verification platforms of the competing vendors (in order to balance the necessities of attestations with an appropriate degree of anti-monopolistic protections for consumers).
> It's scary how quickly the banning is moving. The problem is what happens next. When they realise that banning things doesn't really work
This confidence that ‘attestation doesn’t really work’ is the same sort of confidence that lead the Linux user community to largely scoff at, and ignore, attestation’s threat from when it was ballistically launched three decades ago towards the future. Options are now very limited for stopping it, and largely reduced to ‘getting some Linux into the approval list’. Severe compromises in user freedom will be required for the signed+sealed distro images to receive government approvals.
Imagine if Linux were an app on a video game console and you start to see the outcome: it’s a perfectly great working environment into which all of /usr/local and /opt and /home are writable, but the lockdown prevents you from modifying the OS in any way that could defeat the attestation protections. Apps you install into /opt can only access their own /opt/prefix, apps you install into /usr/local can access $HOME. The apps you install can choose to write session data (such as digital age verification certificates) to a system-protected /data store keyed first by the kernel’s signature, and second by the vendor signature the kernel reads from the app; with the understanding that an attestation latch-forward after an exploit patch will wipe that store, and that dual-booting to a different vendor will suspend access to sessions stored by that vendor.
This is, to climb on my hobby horse for a moment, why I continue to believe that Valve will be the first Linux vendor to receive government attestation approval alongside Apple / Google / Microsoft have previously across the desktop and mobile spaces. I’d really prefer that to be Graphene, Ubuntu, and Valve — but Graphene’s customer base is hostile to this, Ubuntu doesn’t have any incentive to care, and of the Linux vendors out there, Valve has a decade-long head start on the need for a locked-down and attested platform for business reasons. All of the above falls out naturally from considering how to defend one app from another on Android, iOS, Steam Deck, and Xbox. So far as I can tell today, though, Linux intends to be left out in the cold on all this. Oh well.
Comment by m3galinux 4 hours ago
Comment by altairprime 4 hours ago
So, in the scenario posed (quoted above again for context) that I’m responding to, where the government has mandated attestation online, it seems like you’re arguing that Linux should continue to opt-out of attestation, and thus be forced into non-internet uses only. Do I misunderstand your intended outcome to the scenario here? I took for granted that Linux users would want to retain access to the internet as a critical priority, given how strongly they’re objecting to attestation of internet apps (and eventually internet access), but if I’m mistaken then I’m happy to reverse course!
Comment by m3galinux 1 hour ago
Don't fall for the trap that all of this is inevitable, you have to try and resist it first.
Comment by dmantis 5 hours ago
This way we will just have unremovable age verification, spyware, online accounts to use the os, name another bs from other vendors. What's the point of Linux then? The moment big corps and the state can seal spyware into your computer, they'll happily do it.
I'd rather have a separate burn device with whatever os for state services which lives in a faraday cage most of the time and have a proper OS I control on the main device than give somebody control over it.
Comment by altairprime 5 hours ago
Comment by doublerabbit 4 hours ago
"Starting anaconda", "Enable Kdump", on anything RedHat.
Debian spews an ancient terminal window of options upon options and who knows how to install Arch.
Linux installations has never been click, click go. Installation wizards are still designed for the tech enabled and not the common user.
We have a helicopter on Mars yet they still can't master a installation wizard.
Comment by altairprime 3 hours ago
Unexpectedly, the 'bootable thumb drive' models are actually pretty great — not the installers, but the ones that boot straight into a GUI that works and is usable. I haven't used one as my personal Linux uses predated thumb drives, but I have always (mistakenly?) assumed that once you're booted into a liveCD, you can click 'Install on a drive partition' and it will actually do something coherent and GUI and reasonable. Have I been too optimistic? Probably, yeah :(
Comment by doublerabbit 5 hours ago
When you accept government gift in approval consider it tapped. At any point they can return to the vendor and go "install this". No? Okay bye to your certification.
Call me paranoid.
Comment by altairprime 5 hours ago
I bet you would, though, if the built OS image were 100% reproducible except for the signature. Once you have a fully reproducible Linux OS build, you can literally copy paste the cryptosig from the vendor and it will work with the image you built yourself from source that you inspected yourself. Then it’s impossible for the government to tap it without breaking the reproducible image checksum and thus the published cryptosig. It’s a better defense than any warrant canary would be, and it satisfies your concerns fully.
Arch shows only 15 packages left for their core OS to be built reproducibly; what I don’t see at their dashboard is the state of their ISO build reproducibility, but I imagine that’s the same as the core, so maybe it’s just unstated for obviousness. https://reproducible.archlinux.org/
Does GrapheneOS publish their repro build efforts as a dashboard anywhere?
Comment by fph 3 hours ago
Instructions to fully reproduce a build are here: https://grapheneos.org/build#reproducible-builds (disclaimer: I never tried using them).
Comment by doublerabbit 4 hours ago
CryptoSecure, depends how it's done but again neither can be trusted. Especially when you have no control over the silicon running the OS.
I don't trust Linux now. Microsoft got its mits with WSL. RedHat sold-out to IBM and Debian got in bed with Canonical. Arch & Valve I might trust slightly more. They've got to make money somehow /shrug.
I use FreeBSD and I don't trust that either unless I can do make install world, even then I have my suspicions.
Comment by spogbiper 6 hours ago
“Every time we see a Google Pixel, we suspect it might belong to a drug dealer,” said a police official leading the anti-drug operation in Catalonia.."
Seems like some countries/areas are already targeting the Pixel (really its because of GrapheneOS)
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 5 hours ago
Comment by simondotau 1 hour ago
Comment by RickS 6 hours ago
There's really something to be said for greedily signing up for most things and trying to get grandfathered before the zipcuffs tighten.
IRL, though, fuck this. Home depot added flock cams and broad facial recognition, grocery store installed turnstiles, haven't stepped foot in either since. I'm just dropping out of the IRL retail economy left and right.
Comment by jbxntuehineoh 3 hours ago
Comment by LightBug1 7 hours ago
Genuine question. That's news to me and I'm here.
Comment by tentacleuno 6 hours ago
[0]: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-vpn-...
Comment by domh 4 hours ago
https://youtube.com/shorts/WvHl3G6KojI
I believe they're "doing research" into it, which basically means they don't understand how any of it works.
Comment by arbol 7 hours ago
Comment by subscribed 6 hours ago
It mostly happened already and it's in motion.
Comment by ravenical 6 hours ago
Comment by jasonvorhe 6 hours ago
Comment by iAMkenough 7 hours ago
Comment by gonzalohm 6 hours ago
Comment by tryauuum 6 hours ago
- drop wireguard / OpenVPN packets crossing the country border
- analyze https traffic to detect traffic patterns not matching https fully and block such connectionsComment by Borealid 3 hours ago
Comment by tryauuum 1 hour ago
EDIT: I might be confusing vless/xray/reality but seems like there are no problems to block it based on ip reputation + tls fingerprint + amount of connections https://habr.com/ru/articles/1044396/
Of course this would block some valid websites but when has government cared about that
Comment by ifwinterco 6 hours ago
I don’t think that will stop them trying though
Comment by jsiepkes 2 hours ago
Comment by prmoustache 7 hours ago
Comment by bri3d 6 hours ago
Comment by m3galinux 4 hours ago
Comment by 9cb14c1ec0 7 hours ago
Comment by miketery 7 hours ago
It's possible that we get to a place where everyone cooks their own meal (vibe coded app), and only goes out to eat sometimes (official app store). Spreadsheets are the same, you can get a lot of milage, and most still buy and use closed source software.
Reminds me of this: https://www.robinsloan.com/notes/home-cooked-app/
Comment by bflesch 6 hours ago
Comment by bluGill 4 hours ago
Comment by doublerabbit 7 hours ago
Comment by wongarsu 7 hours ago
Comment by doublerabbit 6 hours ago
Comment by applfanboysbgon 5 hours ago
Comment by dredmorbius 2 hours ago
<https://www.macstories.net/stories/10-years-of-app-store-a-t...>
HN discussion at the time:
- Apple iPhone SDK Event: iFund - $100 Million for iPhone Devs <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=130686>
And some early skepticism: "iPhone SDK And Restrictions: Some Of The Details Aren’t Great" (7 Mar 2008) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=131171> Mostly concerns limitations on the API and what capabilities are exposed.
And for those who care to do more digging, a couple of searches bounded on 5 Mar 2008 -- 6 Mar 2012, the first 4 years of the App store:
"iphone sdk": <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1331078400&dateRange=custom&...>
"iphone apps": <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1331078400&dateRange=custom&...>
"iOS apps": <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1331078400&dateRange=custom&...>
A very cursory eyeball of those shows some interest, but nothing overwhelmingly panglossian or critical. But I've not looked in depth.
Comment by doublerabbit 2 hours ago
https://distrowatch.com/table-mobile.php?distribution=icepac...
My first mobile phone was a Siemens m35i, eventually followed by a Sony Ericsson k500.
Where the Nokia 3310 phone couls receive animated icons via SMS messages that displayed on the background as well as looking at ascii smut via WAP at the age of 15.
So yes, what do you take me for? A disappointed cynical 37 year old who's watched the world burn in to a walled garden of hell that folk enjoy licking the grey walls of.
I do recall the rainbow fences where one could happily jump over if you got bored. Where anxiety wasn't a thing and folk were in touch with nature.
Comment by applfanboysbgon 6 hours ago
Literally who?
Comment by mystraline 6 hours ago
The rest of us groan when we hear "DOWNLOAD OUR APP" or grocery stores that want you to install their spyware coupon app.
These days, nost apps are just data exflitrators, spyware portals, and surveillance pricing initiatives, wrapped up with a "FREE THINGY" wrapping.
Comment by mrhottakes 2 hours ago
This describes almost every "tech" product
Comment by aljgz 38 minutes ago
Comment by minraws 6 hours ago
Happy voting with your wallet folks. See ya.
Comment by neilv 4 hours ago
I strongly recommend saying that the operating system is one of "Android" (there are many variants), "Android (GrapheneOS)", or "GrapheneOS Android".
But if you say only "GrapheneOS", you are practically telling VW to respond that they do not support that operating system.
Comment by kyledrake 6 hours ago
Not surprising to me at all that their software is a similar high quality experience, but in general I think it's weird that cars have to be connected to the Internet anyways and I doubt the competition is substantially better.
Comment by jmward01 7 hours ago
Comment by bluGill 4 hours ago
Comment by varkokonyi 1 hour ago
Comment by pmontra 4 hours ago
Comment by Terr_ 1 hour ago
I don't know if an AAWireless adapter might operate in a way that could bridge that compatibility gap, but it might be worth a shot if you can borrow one to try it out.
I've been decently happy with it in a ~2020 car. Compared to a direct USB connection, there are some privacy implications with how it's running a low-power access point in the car, but bluetooth etc. are already a risk there.
> Did I miss something by not integrating my phone with my car? I don't think so. I call with Bluetooth and navigate with the screen of the phone.
For me the the main feature for Android Auto (over just a bluetooth connection) is navigation on the car's larger touchscreen that already has a good fixed position.
Comment by jasonvorhe 6 hours ago
This is the WEF future your conspiracy uncle was telling you about during family gatherings. Well.
Comment by lenkite 5 hours ago
"You will own nothing and be happy" - WEF Prime Objective.Comment by MeneDev 4 hours ago
As a EU citizen, please sign this petition https://www.change.org/p/eu-data-act-durchsetzen-autoherstel...
Comment by monomial 6 hours ago
Comment by SoftTalker 4 hours ago
Comment by mrhottakes 2 hours ago
Comment by Plasmoid 2 hours ago
Toyota's have such a backlog of orders that they're marking cars up above MSRP
Comment by torginus 5 hours ago
There's no way to verify the integrity of the system, and any malicious app can just grab your banking credentials or enable criminals to unlock and drive away with your car.
Comment by leni536 14 minutes ago
I don't see how the second half of the sentence follows from the first half.
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 4 hours ago
Play integrity is an anticompetitive tool that ignores this, and artificially limits itself on GrapheneOS. It is not due to any incompatibility.
Comment by summm 2 hours ago
I still am hoping that at one point they understand the full consequences of remote attestation. There are some signs they start to notice, but it's slow...
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 1 hour ago
GrapheneOS is one of, if not the most vocal organization against the abuse of attestation mechanisms. GrapheneOS and its userbase feel the consequences of play integrity every single day.
Im not sure where you got the idea that all GrapheneOS wants is to be accepted by play integrity, because that is not the case. GrapheneOS has been working with regulators to get play integrity banned. Being accepted by play integrity, but nothing else changing, is not good enough for GrapheneOS. It would only be a small victory along the path of abolishing this nonsense.
So, no, GrapheneOS and its community are definitely against play integrity. The "signs" that they are "starting to notice" are not there. They are already fully aware of what attestation is and how it can be abused. They are definitely not ignorant on the subject.
You might be confusing root based attestation with pinned attestation. Root based attestation is flimsy and allows tools like play integrity to ban operating systems they do not like. Pinned attestation, on the other hand, has real security properties and cannot be abused to block certain operating systems. GrapheneOS uses pinned attestation as a part of their Auditor app, and it has other cool uses we could see in the future.
Comment by summm 30 minutes ago
The pinning you are proposing, does it imply that there is again some certification of the "official" GrapheneOS, versus e.g. the user's own fork of GrapheneOS?
How would any of the existing proponents of remote attestation agree to anything like this, given what we consider abuse is exactly their reason of implementing it in the first place? Here, VW wants to stop use of the API by anything else than their App, in order to stop hobbyists and sell API access to commercial middle men. If the user could pin their own software's attestation or even register an arbitrary public key to cover updates, then the user would as well be able to code his own API client that just emulates the attestation. Is there any write up or discussion of the pinning you propose?
I am really not yet convinced how you want to counter the inevitable abuse that app developers and service providers will subject the user to if the OS security model gives them that kind of power over the user's end device.
Comment by plqbfbv 2 hours ago
I get that Google doesn't want to be sued for failing to protect its users and indirect users of the mobile phones sold by other companies, but for advanced users there should be an option to update the signing keys used by the bootloader, so that you can unlock, flash your custom ROM, update keys, and relock bootloader. Such a phone should still be considered "trusted" by Google Integrity APIs. But currently there's no way to do this, so basically you don't really own your hardware.
I gave up on custom ROMs trying to extend my devices' lives and bought a Fairphone instead, so I have the assurance from the vendor that I will have software updates for a very long time.
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 1 hour ago
Comment by superxpro12 2 hours ago
Comment by uniq7 4 hours ago
Has this ever happened?
Comment by bilsbie 2 hours ago
Comment by estebank 2 hours ago
- RCS doesn't work at all on non-Owner accounts, switching to the owner account is necessary to receive them (I use a secondary account for my "main" account, the owner is left empty except for a Google Fi associated account)
- Immediate auto-update can cause phone to turn off and not turn on overnight (you can change the setting)
- Google Wallet won't work for payments (in Europe you can instead use Curve)
- The default AOSP app selection is in general worse than the Google provided ones (you can install them, after installing Google Play Services, which is sandboxed)
- Getting Google Fi to work required some fiddling initially, pretty sure it was because of my use of the non-Owner account
- Some banking apps will refuse to work (mine work fine)
- You can get Android Auto working, but by default so many things are sandboxed that applications and TTS won't show up unless you spend the time enabling permissions
Overall I am happy with it. It does feel a bit less polished than stock Android (because of the interaction of apps and more strict sandboxing), but for most people who don't care about Google Wallet and are ok installing Play Services and any necessary Google apps, the experience feels pretty much like a de-Gemini'd/de-bloated Android.
Comment by lawn 2 hours ago
It's not as customizable as Samsung for instance.
It only runs on Pixel phones (next year hopefully some Motorola phones).
Comment by LostMyLogin 7 hours ago
Comment by Viability1936 6 hours ago
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 5 hours ago
Oh, and Android 17 has been released so there is hype for that.
Comment by qrobit 6 hours ago
Comment by ysnp 4 hours ago
Comment by z3ratul163071 2 hours ago
Comment by jqpabc123 7 hours ago
Comment by dredmorbius 2 hours ago
If a monopolist can insist on terms (e.g., Amazon mandating lowest price guarantees from sellers, or Google mandating auth / compliance / KYC exclusivity to Google Play Services privileged devices by app devs), then threats to the compelled party (sellers, app devs) will be minimally effective.
Class action lawsuits, regulation, and legislation, are required for effective relief.
Comment by stymaar 7 hours ago
Comment by techdmn 6 hours ago
Increasingly my vision of retirement is a life of luxury surrounded by hardware from before the internet era, things that do what I tell them, rather than telling me what I am and am not allowed to do.
Comment by bluGill 6 hours ago
Comment by buggeryorkshire 6 hours ago
Comment by quickthrowman 5 hours ago
Nissan sells a ton of cars to subprime borrowers, quality isn’t exactly their focus. Hyundai/Kia and Stellantis also target the same buyers.
Comment by stymaar 5 hours ago
Comment by warkdarrior 7 hours ago
> Please note that the use of the Volkswagen app is only supported on iOS devices and Android devices with supported operating system versions.
Is it time to mandate app developers support all operating systems for a device?
Comment by queeshonda 7 hours ago
Comment by arkon_hn 7 hours ago
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 5 hours ago
Dont let their boilerplate responses fool you, tools like play integrity only serve to push anticompetitive practices. The claims about not being able to support GOS are nonsense, and all they did was break existing support.
Comment by warkdarrior 7 hours ago
Comment by chasil 4 hours ago
I have moved most of the my finance activity to it, along with my license and passport. I would never trust a Google device with this much, and the convenience has been profound in a few circumstances.
I would relegate any intrusive apps here, and happily deny them cross-app tracking privileges.
Comment by bossyTeacher 7 hours ago
Comment by ranger_danger 7 hours ago
Comment by microtonal 7 hours ago
My take is that they were trying to block rooted phones and/or custom ROMs of questionable origin and GrapheneOS just became collateral damage because all these companies do go the minimal route of using Play Integrity. GrapheneOS supports remote attestation through AOSP APIs, in fact, they have a page about it.
I think it's worth letting this be heard. GrapheneOS has > 400,000 users and is rapidly growing. Breaking things is not going to affect 5 people anymore, but thousands, ten thousands or hundreds of thousands, depending on what the app is.
Comment by Zak 5 hours ago
There are only bad reasons for them to do that. End users don't get compromised that way in reality, but it does mean they might convince the app to do something that's bad for profits.
Comment by strcat 5 hours ago
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 5 hours ago
GrapheneOS is also not responsible for bugs in this app. Any bug reports coming from GOS are likely to be from the hardening toggles, which uncover bugs in the app. This is the apps fault, and these bugs still exist on other OSs. It should be resolved for the benefit of all users.
Comment by mschild 7 hours ago
Comment by ryandrake 7 hours ago
"Support" is such an overloaded and vague word in the software industry. What does it mean for a company to "support" an app/os configuration?
1. They deliberately target that app/os configuration, QA tests it, and answer customer support requests about it.
2. They target the configuration, QA tests it, but it's offered without customer support.
3. They target the configuration, but only release an untested build, use at your own risk.
4. They don't target the configuration at all, but the builds they do release happen to work on the configuration, totally unacknowledged by the company.
5. They don't target the configuration, and deliberately sabotage their application such that un-targeted configurations are actively blocked. Only adversarial users who hack the software are able to use it.
Too many companies say: "We can't do 1 because we don't 'support' it, therefore we must do 5!"
Comment by Zak 5 hours ago
About the only time it doesn't work is when the game uses an anticheat system that intentionally blocks Linux. I can even see where the game devs are coming from when it comes to competitive games; cheating ruins the game for other players, and there's no way to prevent certain kinds of cheating without trusting the client to a degree.
I can't see any reasonable and user-respecting place VW could be coming from intentionally blocking access from open systems.
Comment by fsflover 6 hours ago
Because of those bug reports, very few may be specific to the non-mainstream OS? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28978086
Comment by Arainach 7 hours ago
If you choose to use something like GrapheneOS, you are signing up for the fact that almost no one will test on your platform and plenty of things will be broken.
Comment by microtonal 7 hours ago
Hypothetically, if GrapheneOS wanted to become a certified Android, it would probably not be blocked on technical reasons, only that becoming certified (last time a contract was leaked) requires running privileged Google Play Services (which is less secure) and pre-installing a bunch of Google apps that should not be uninstallable.
How is that not anti-competitive?
Comment by watermelon0 7 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 7 hours ago
Comment by moooo99 6 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 5 hours ago
> GrapheneOS is a privacy and security focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility [https://grapheneos.org/]
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 5 hours ago
Tools such as play integrity are illegal. Using anticompetitive and monopolistic tools is not the right of application developers.
Comment by Arainach 4 hours ago
> Using anticompetitive and monopolistic tools is not the right of application developers.
Please talk to an actual lawyer before making legal claims, because to be blunt it's very clear you don't know what many of those terms mean in a legal context. VW is not a "monopoly". They have no obligation to allow the use of their software on platforms they don't want.
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 3 hours ago
I do know what these terms mean in a legal context. I am claiming that play integrity is an anticompetitive and monopolistic tool, of which VW decided to use. I am not claiming VW is a monopoly. What you are claiming is their right to do, is not their right at all, and is illegal.
Comment by Arainach 3 hours ago
You may disagree with the concept of Device Integrity, but it is a feature with plenty of history and demand. Companies want their services accessed from secure platforms for security, and this is not inherently anticompetitive.
Comment by Zak 5 hours ago
Comment by midasz 7 hours ago
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 5 hours ago
The issue is not that this application isnt tested on GOS, its that an anticompetitive, illegal tool is being used to ban non-certified OSs when these apps would work perfectly otherwise.
Comment by _imnothere 4 hours ago
Obviously VW broke the app for GrapheneOS (or any other custom ROM) on purpose, and ironically, things usually works fine for custom ROMs than some Chinese OEM customized ROMs, and when it works, it means the developer went extra miles to implement workaround to cater the flawed OS.[1]
[1]: ref: Years of Android community experience
Comment by tedajax 7 hours ago
Comment by warkdarrior 7 hours ago
Maybe then app developers should be mandated to open fully their server-side protocols, so people can create apps for platforms that are not supported by default. No more undocumented APIs, anybody can get an API key, no API serving limits!
Comment by microtonal 7 hours ago
Comment by queeshonda 7 hours ago
Fuck that.
Comment by teekert 3 hours ago
Comment by CafeRacer 2 hours ago
Comment by mrhottakes 2 hours ago
A German philosopher had a lot to say about this a couple hundred years ago... I think his name was Karl.
Comment by Calgaryp 5 hours ago
Comment by joemazerino 2 hours ago
Comment by HybridStatAnim8 1 hour ago
Comment by innocentoldguy 3 hours ago
Comment by izacus 6 hours ago
Comment by guitcastro 5 hours ago
Comment by ReptileMan 6 hours ago
Comment by nyx 5 hours ago
Comment by ReptileMan 4 hours ago
Comment by padjo 4 hours ago
Comment by amyjess 5 hours ago
Comment by broadsidepicnic 3 hours ago
Also I have to say, setting charge times remotely is mighty handy, if one pays the market/pool prices for electricity which fluctuate from hour to hour.
Comment by shevy-java 4 hours ago
To me this smells like a cartel. Why is the EU not doing anything?
Comment by teamonkey 1 hour ago
My feeling is that this change plus the recent API lock for a few days ago are in fact part of a reworking to enable this EU legislation.
Comment by rabster9 5 hours ago
Comment by rabster9 5 hours ago
Comment by mohamedkoubaa 7 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 7 hours ago
There are already massive problems with people miswiring head units to play videos while driving and updating their ECU to spew pollution into the air. You're not going to convince any significant number of people that it's a good idea to allow arbitrary code to run and control most of the other systems too.
Comment by dylan604 6 hours ago
Then that's a poor design that should go the way of the dodo. Someone hacking the entertainment system should not be able to take over control of the engine. The entertainment system on planes do not allow one to hack into the autopilot. There should be no need for a firewall, they should have no shared wires between them.
Comment by Arainach 6 hours ago
* Backup Camera
* Turning traction control on/off
* Turning auto hold (maintaining the brake pedal while stopped) on/off
* Window defrosting
Many cars are even more integrated - are there any physical buttons inside a Tesla or is it all through the touchscreen?
Comment by dylan604 6 hours ago
If you're going to use the worst example as the comparison, then we'll get no where fast.
Comment by dada216 7 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 7 hours ago
Comment by dylan604 6 hours ago
Comment by mohamedkoubaa 6 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 6 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 6 hours ago
Comment by ssl-3 5 hours ago
It works in tunnels. It works in cities with tall buildings. It works on Lower Wacker Drive in Chicago.
Is there some technological limitation that precludes using this data to determine whether or not a movie can be played?
(It's not like it's new tech. It's decades-old. Honda started using it over 20 years ago.)
Comment by Arainach 4 hours ago
It's also not clear what the purpose of this line of argument is. Some sensor says "car is moving". The operating system in the car/head unit is responsible for enforcing that signal, and it could ignore it equally from either OBD or some pile of gyroscopes. Where that signal comes from has nothing to do with why you will not see cars accepting custom operating systems.
Comment by ssl-3 4 hours ago
It completely dismantles your previous goalposts, which were planted firmly on GPS:
>> Not with the necessary precision. GPS doesn't work in tunnels or parking garages and can be wildly inaccurate in city centers with skyscrapers blocking line of sight, for instance.
(I guess we all have the freedom to be as flexible with our goalposts as we wish. I didn't come here for a tireless argument that is motivated by nothing but the desire to argue, though. Have a great day!)
Comment by Arainach 3 hours ago
Comment by dylan604 4 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 3 hours ago
Comment by juliangmp 7 hours ago
Comment by mohamedkoubaa 2 hours ago
Comment by binary132 7 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 7 hours ago
Comment by mohamedkoubaa 6 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 6 hours ago
Comment by subscribed 6 hours ago
Comment by ssl-3 6 hours ago
In the States, for example: Every state I've looked at has laws that make it illegal to roll coal.
And at least in my own state (Ohio), it's a primary offense. A person can be pulled over and ticketed for this even if they're doing everything else by the book. It's super easy to spot.
It seems that it persists not because of a lack of laws, but because of a lack of enforcement.
Comment by subscribed 5 hours ago
Comment by binary132 6 hours ago
also, what scale of harm do you think exists from those people?
do you really believe that control of one’s own engine should be removed from all vehicle owners if a few people misuse it?
do you understand that vehicle manufacturers use their proprietary systems that control the vehicle to exploit customers?
Comment by Arainach 5 hours ago
Serious health complications, particularly to cyclists and pedestrians. Significant pollution surges:
> According to government estimates, the practice can increase nitrogen oxide emissions as much as 310 times, non-methane hydrocarbons 1,400 times, and carbon monoxide 120 times. [https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/rolling-coal-donal...]
> AED estimates that the emissions controls have been removed from more than 550,000 diesel pickup trucks in the last decade. As a result ofthis tampering, more than 570,000 tons of excess oxides of nitrogen(NOx) and 5,000 tons of particulate matter (PM) will be emitted by these tampered trucks over the lifetime of the vehicles. [https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/epa-on-tampered-diese...]
Comment by childofhedgehog 2 hours ago
Comment by Arainach 24 minutes ago
Comment by binary132 1 hour ago
I didn’t ask the multiplier of badness of a single individual doing a bad and stinky thing, I asked what you think the _scale_ is. Do you believe that all people with trucks modified to do this are doing it at all times? Or even half the time? How many people do you think are doing it?
Comment by Arainach 24 minutes ago
Comment by bdamm 7 hours ago
Comment by mohamedkoubaa 2 hours ago
Comment by ddalex 7 hours ago
Comment by callc 7 hours ago
People are growingly concerned with both the car manu and Apple/Google control over their car and related extra software goodies.
Laws are really needed when businesses don’t play nicely. I don’t know the legal specifics, but I’m sure glad I don’t need to buy $1000’s of specialty tools to maintain my vehicle, and sure glad that replacement parts are readily available (and will be for decades).
Just image how much worse society would be if car manus did the same thing as Apple and had ID-paired parts. Sorry! Your AC doesn’t work anymore, please install a genuine Honda oil filter at your nearest Authorized Honda Shop, available for a minimum of $500.
Comment by ddalex 5 hours ago
10 out of random 10 drivers out there don't care about the software running in the car.
> Laws are really needed when businesses don’t play nicely. I don’t know the legal specifics, but I’m sure glad I don’t need to buy $1000’s of specialty tools to maintain my vehicle, and sure glad that replacement parts are readily available (and will be for decades).
You drive a self-maintained car. Nothing wrong with that, but I would guess 95 out of 100 drivers on the road don't care about the car at all - they just want reliable transportation from A to B and perhaps some confort.
> Just image how much worse society would be if car manus did the same thing as Apple and had ID-paired parts. Sorry! Your AC doesn’t work anymore, please install a genuine Honda oil filter at your nearest Authorized Honda Shop, available for a minimum of $500.
I don't have to imagine that al all, all premium car manufactures digitally id their components and will not accept 3rd party replacements.
Comment by childofhedgehog 2 hours ago
Comment by DANmode 7 hours ago
(Yes, repairability and standardization are encouraged where feasible.)
Comment by ddalex 5 hours ago
Like, the head unit is in control of all that happens on the slow bus of the car, and needs to pass independent safety certifications for a complex system.
Comment by DANmode 4 hours ago
Comment by bflesch 6 hours ago