upvote
You fell for really shoddy reporting by AD/HLN:

According to our information, the reseller did not distribute official GrapheneOS. Using AI tools, he had built his own fork and added mobile device management (MDM) for remote administration. The result was a separate operating system that lacked, among other things, the security updates of the original project.

His signing keys for that system were probably compromised. Anyone holding those keys can build an update that the phones accept as genuine. Such an update was apparently installed on seized phones via ADB (Android Debug Bridge), an interface that requires a USB cable connection, and probably removed the screen lock. The phones could then be examined forensically. On our information, the authorities again needed the phone in their hands. On official GrapheneOS, the same approach would require the project's own signing keys.

https://www.joint-defense-team.com/post/grapheneos-cracked-p...

reply
I don't think the attack can work as described here. One of the features that GrapheneOS lists is:

> Insider attack resistance for updates to the secure element (Owner user authentication required before updates are accepted)

From my understanding, this means that even if you do have the signing keys, you cannot install an update that would remove the need for knowing the screen lock to unlock the filesystem's encryption - as installing such an update requires entering the screen lock first.

reply
However if you have signing keys and access to the update delivery infra you could just publish the update and wait for it to get auto updated before starting to seize the phones.
reply
To my knowledge this is true for normal android as well (perhaps not that authentication is required); the data is encrypted against the passcode.
reply
But the phones were also under some form of MDM, maybe they could have used that?
reply
This is the issue with being lenient on crime but also being liberal. You have to search for the "right" patterns to find your criminal. It happens that folks who care about privacy, and criminals, two distinct groups search and use the same set of technologies: wether it's grapheneOS, or others. I am also tired of people still looking suspicious at me for not having instagram, snap or tiktok or use whatsapp, it's like I dropped out of society, and that I use linux and use open source email clients/server, I use ublock origin advanced with blocking of scripts and 3rd party domains. Why privacy is an uphill daily battle.
reply
> I am also tired of people still looking suspicious at me for not having instagram, snap or tiktok or use whatsapp, it's like I dropped out of society,

social media was designed to appear like it is society, endorsed by the same people who _made_ the society

i think its all just an illusion to make us work harder :(

reply
When I was dating around there was more than one instance of the other person finding it weird/creepy/suspicious that I had no Twitter/Instagram/whatever. As if a 2025 Ted Bundy would make a social media account and then post about how much he likes killing people. Surely nobody lies on the internet!
reply
> Police were looking for […] Google Pixel phones. These have become popular among criminals in recent years […]. Among others, the murderers of Dutch crime reporter Peter R. de Vries had Google Pixel devices with them during the attack.

This is so braindead, it’s the same as “a black person committed a crime, lets search all black people!”

If someone with an iPhone commits a crime, will they do the same?

reply
You can't decide to stop being black, but you can choose to not buy an iPhone. That's why race is a protected category and your smartphone is not.

And it is not "braindead". EncroChat was a "privacy service", selling phones featuring E2E encryption, disabled cameras and microphones, etc... Even though it wasn't marketed as such, it was mostly a service for criminals. And they effectively searched everyone using these devices (they hacked the firmware), and maybe a few people who weren't criminals got searched, as it happens in many investigations, most people turned out to be. The result was many arrests of people you really want to get arrested, with weapons, murder, torture, etc... being involved.

That's also the reason why mainstream apps like Signal are important for privacy, if only criminals use an app, having that app is a legitimate reason for being suspected. If most people using the app don't really need privacy and it is mostly used to talk about what to eat for dinner, that protects those who really need that privacy. And yes, it includes criminals, unfortunately, so it is actually a good thing for society when criminals use their own communication channels instead of using mainstream ones, good thing most of them are not so smart.

reply
There is an actual Peter de Vries? Is that a coincidence? Or something Frank Herbert deliberately put in?
reply
Peter R De Vries was a prolific crime reporter / journalist who did exceptional work in the Netherlands for many years until he was murdered in cold blood.
reply
de Vries is one of the most surnames in Holland. It literally means "from Frisia (the modern day dutch province of Friesland)".

So Peter de Vries is effectively the dutch equivalent of John Smith.

reply
I guess, though John Smith would more literally be Jan Smit, and the surname de Vries might be a name more like North or York.
reply
What it boils down to is that governments tend to prefer that the tools people have available to them are limited in capability.

iPhones and Apple systems in general are the most locked-down phones on the mainstream market, so very government-friendly in that sense.

It's why I'm always slightly disappointed to see developers using Apple systems. They're a far cry from the systems that Steve Wozniak originally built.

reply