> He is also, in my opinion, overworked.

It would certainly help if people like yourself were not prolifically spreading misinformation and false claims about the project and myself. Luckily, I am not writing most of the GrapheneOS code at this time.

> packages/apps/Gallery/src/com/android/camera/MenuHelper.java (calls maps.google.com)

Not used.

> packages/apps/Settings/src/com/android/RadioInfo.java (multiple connectivity checks pinging Google servers)

This is a developer / debugging UI with ping buttons doing what they say on the tin.

> external/webrtc/webrtc/p2p/stunprober/main.cc (uses a Google STUN server)

Code is not included in the OS.

> packages/apps/Nfc/src/com/android/nfc/P2pLinkManager.java

The code is not used, and it doesn't do what you say. It's code for creating and sending a link to an app on the Play Store. It isn't code for accessing it.

> And BTW again, this says nothing about SUPL, which is still tracked as an issue about which there isn't a lot of clarity: https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os_issue_tracker/issues/96

It is clear to us and I've explained it here.

There is nothing that needs to be rationalized away but rather you grepped through the code and your confirmation bias + lack of research led you to make bad assumptions.

You didn't submit issue reports, patches or even make an attempt to talk about this. If you had, it could have been explained that you were making mistakes. Perhaps you could have done something useful instead of wasting your time. Perhaps you could have informed yourself instead of leading yourself astray with your confirmation bias and assumptions. It doesn't really matter now. Please stop spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS and myself though. Leave us out of it.

I think it says a lot that your post was the highest voted and that spreading misinformation and making false claims is how you folks choose to operate. You do not do useful work, but rather try to hurt projects that do, in order to promote something else. Maybe you should promote it based on the merits instead of with false claims about us. I'm not sure why you're comparing our privacy and security hardening work with a hardware project which it could be used on in the first place.

If a 'strong personality' means an intolerance for dishonesty then that's certainly the case. Unfortunately, certain companies focused entirely on marketing / branding take the approach of spreading misinformation about others because they do not have any substance themselves. Producing an incredibly insecure product but branding it as secure and attacking others is par for the course. That's pretty much the whole privacy and security industry.

GrapheneOS is a non-profit open source project and we'll continue doing our work regardless of these kinds of continued attempts to spread misinformation about it and cause harm to us. Companies and products will come and go. We'll still be working on genuine privacy and security improvements across the software and hardware world in one way or another. We are not trying to sell a product and we don't have this motivation to tear down others with misinformation. If it's bad, then we'll say so. Our documentation is very honest about what we provide and what we don't provide in the various projects we work on. It is very open about the trade-offs of the design choices, etc. We're confident that the project will succeed on the merits without needing to make up a lot of BS about it and about others. We intend to work with hardware partners and others with the same kinds of goals and approach: providing a high level of privacy and security alongside usability, with an approach that's open and honest.

We won't attach our name to a device that did not meet a high level of privacy and security by shipping a modern, properly configured SoC for production use with proper support for firmware, etc. for years and all the standard hardware security features (verified boot, HSM-based attestation, HSM-based keystore, strong hardware encryption / key derivation support, proper IOMMUs, modern exploit mitigations, and all the other stuff we expect). We'll happily include minor bonuses like a Sensors Off kill switch that truly works as a mitigation for a device compromise based on a clear threat model for that (i.e. if it's meant to do something like stopping audio recording, then the speakers and all the sensors usable for that have to be dealt with too). We're 100% open to working with a vendor sharing those kinds of goals.