weaselsrippedmyflesh

It’s also up to us to not jump aboard any given claim and be critical of what others are spelling out for us. In any case, the transcripts in both english and french were posted by grapheneOS in the comments as well, so non-native french speakers can draw their own conclusions.

You’re right that it’s also up to him to clarify his remarks, but I feel like this is a non-issue generously stretched out online that just sows further division that only benefits the big offenders against privacy.

Agree with your outlook, but I think it’s not too farfetched to give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker here and establish that pedophiles were used as an example (of people whose survival depends on their data not being breached), rather than a direct comparison. And he goes on to name being an executive to the secret services as another example (again, of people to whom hardened security of data is an imperative), but we’re not saying he thinks secure phones are just for people in secret services, are we?

He’s just saying, albeit rather clumsily, that their goal is simply not that level of hardened security, but rather privacy from data miners.

I don’t think he’s actually making the parallelism with pedophiles and security per se, but rather he’s making the case that his OS’ mission isn’t by default focused on that level of security or anonymity, but rather privacy and disengagement from companies who profit from your data being mined.

He mentioned pedophiles, as well as the secret service, right after, as examples of either criminals who need to be obscured from detection (maybe because it’s easy for the Epstein class to pop in someone’s head, nowadays?) or government agents that need to protect themselves from data breaches, and said his type of OS isn’t made with that level of airtight security in mind, which is understandable and reasonable, and something we probably all knew already. It could’ve just as well been terrorists and investigative journalists mentioned.

One could take his stance and engage in discussion on whether we need that level of security by default as ordinary citizens, or that even without exceptional circumstances, it becomes necessary in an increasingly hypervigilant society/government, but that’s a separate discussion.

We should have a little nuance in interpreting speeches like these rather than taking things this literally, especially when it’s coming from a direct competitor in the degoogling sphere, who would naturally gain from holding it up in the most unflattering light.