Privacy

50637 readers

459 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

GrapheneOS not supporting Pixel 11s? (grapheneos.social)

submitted 9 hours ago by soratoyuki@piefed.zip to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If GrapheneOS stops supporting future Pixels, and Motorola is only targeting the flagship market for their compatible phones, we're looking at truly dark days ahead.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

We're talking about security features here, not processing speed. There's no excuse for even the cheapest SoCs not to support them. Withholding them from the bottom end of the lineup is pure product differentiation (a.k.a. profiteering, a.k.a. spite and contempt).

[–] TrollAccount69@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It’s really easy to come to that conclusion.

Realistically speaking a team is trying to hit a set of requirements under a set of constraints when they design a soc (or any cpu if you wanna dive into the cisc world and see the wild variation in security featureset across even the same generation of chips). That means using existing designs with a die shrink or something is often the right choice when you’re shooting for the low cost portion of the market. The technology referenced here, enhanced memory tagging extensions, is a hardware implementation of tagging that requires a specific revision of the arm design and it’s a relatively new change (mte, the precursor to emte, is flawed and not used).

So it’s not by dint of wanting to fuck you over that the designers of socs would make one without emte.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 22 minutes ago

That means using existing designs with a die shrink or something is often the right choice when you’re shooting for the low cost portion of the market. The technology referenced here, enhanced memory tagging extensions, is a hardware implementation of tagging that requires a specific revision of the arm design and it’s a relatively new change (mte, the precursor to emte, is flawed and not used).

I'm writing this on a Pixel 8 running GrapheneOS, which I'm pretty sure is a "recommended" device that supports all the security features and is also multiple generations old.

If new lower-end devices use die-shrink versions of previously flagship SoCs, as you say, then I simply do not buy the notion that there's any good reason not to put a die-shrink version of this SoC in a new lower-end phone.