There’s been some posts about Graphene leaving france and accusing the government of targeting them.
This isn’t happening. What happened is that le parisien posted an article that presents what french law enforcement think of grapheneOS, which is obviously mostly crap, then present part of graphene’s respone, which does in fact include their references to human rights organizations, large tech companies and others using GrapheneOS, unlike what grapheneOS claims. The main flaw with the article is the fact that the author takes what the french law enforcement says at face value, which is not a good move.
If you haven’t been following this you may be wondering how this was extrapolated into the government targeting them. Well, it’s because government owned news sites also reported on this. This is because le parisien’s article got regurgitated by a bunch of other news sites looking for an easy article to get ad revenue from, normal news site behavior. The government news sites are fully editorially independent from the government, which the GrapheneOS lead should know, since that’s how the canadian CBC works.
For chat control, that measure isn’t supported by the majority of french meps, just the (massively unpopular) head of state and his minority government. No similar law has been passed nationally, in fact, a law that guarantees privacy rights is making it’s way through the legislature (tuta article). If chat control passes, it affects several of the countries (germany and belgium, afaik) they moved to as well, anyways.
Graphene’s announcement also disparages the other two big privacy roms, both based in france, which is odd and makes me personally think this may have more to do with the visible hatred the project lead has for those projects.
Please tell me what you think, and if I missed anything important, because it really seems like a big nothing-burger to me.


I mean yeah, but that’s an article from a private company that says that law enforcement is going to try to hack into criminal’s phones. Which, like, duh.
The person being interviewed explicitely says that since there are legitimate users of the service, they won’t take the same approach they did with services used only by criminals.
they’re saying that if grapheneOS is found to be explicitely working with criminals they’ll take measures against the org, which is completely reasonable.
I guess you can update your initial misleading post, since you didn’t consider all the news coverage and only singled out one article to fit your narrative 👍
The exact same article that the GrapheneOS devs cited, I mentioned the other news coverage, but didn’t find it necessary to cite every article, since the point I’m making still stands.
Just take the L, stop writhing.