I think my behavior is adequate to GOS' ignorance of my initial inquiries and their irrational-aggressive response they previously gave in the similar discussion. However, that wouldn't be adequate if I started communication with them this way.
> You clearly blame the developers for *not implementing* a feature
I've already debunked this assumption here:
quoting> Clearly you are doing this. When you request a feature in GrapheneOS, then you request the Graphene team to work on this solution.
nevent1q…lsl7
Nope, this is out of context.
I *used to* request this in the past (before publishing this meme) here on Nostr, but as soon as I noticed they ignored my messages, I did research and found their "criticism" of the similar request:
> What you're requesting is that we add things which are easily detected by unsophisticated adversaries
Which is a strawman argument. The duress pin behavior is currently clear without any tools: a device reboots, shows an error.
And in the same response they have:
> Keep doing it and you'll be suspended
Because somebody suspected that they are targeting some unexpected scope they can't properly explain.
Two very bold mistakes in one comment. This would be insanity to ask them for any request after reading all this.
And what scope is that really? I don't know for sure yet. I received an independent response here, a good one:
nevent1q…0lnp
> protecting whoever else
Is the phone owner's security part of the scope? Hello, GrapheneOS (npub1235…0ht5)? I know you won't respond to me. All this is for the records.
Users have no idea what Pandora's box they are carrying with them.