@DanielDNK @TycoonTom @GrapheneOS Attestation as a process is open. The approved OSs would be controlled by the owners of unified attestation. The approach of just making more play integrity clones makes no sense when the service can just pick the OSs themselves.

@DanielDNK @GrapheneOS

The source model doesnt make the approach of the system sensible. Its approach is already a nonstarter and forking it just means convincing app devs to employ a *second* play integrity clone. The proper approach is for there to be no middleman between services and users, by using the generic attestation API. Play integrity is anti competitive and anything mimicking its approach is similarly anti competitive.

GOSs approach to whitelist OSs with the generic attestation API (that GOS fully supports) has worked and will likely keep working as more pressure is applied. A middleman is just harmful to the user and to the service.

@meanmicio @GrapheneOS @volla GrapheneOS has taken steps to create a more private and secure ecosystem. These other organizations have not. They are welcome to begin pushing towards that at any time, but until then, they are actively working against it. You phrase your message as positive, but you are telling victims of harassment and other various crimes to forgive their attackers, and work together with scammers and liars. These scammers do not work towards the same goal and they are making it worse, not better.

What you ask is incredibly disrespectful, and neglects the reality of the situation in favor of empty platitudes and the illusion of making progress.

@echedellelr @GrapheneOS Me when I go on the internet and lie.

This never happened.

@isf @GrapheneOS You are talking to the creators of GrapheneOS. They do not put a chatbot behind the official account.