I'm under no illusion that google doesn't know I own my multiple accounts. They most certainly do. I usually use the same user agent (with containers) on the same IP, after all.

But my goal is to avoid a stranger gaining access to my google services if they manage to unlock a lost device or steal my TV/streaming box that has no lock at all.

I wish Google supported a permission system per device. For example on most of my android devices all I really want is to be logged into Youtube and the play store. I most certainly do not want those devices to have access to my contacts, emails, calendar, keep, drive, payment, etc. (I don't personally use all of those things, but you might and that's what a random thief would gain access to.)

Piggybacking on this... I create my fair share of "burner accounts" and almost always they (not just Google) connect it to my true identity. Granted I'm not using VPNs or really trying to hide the connection but it seems trivial for them to associate.

Google's business model is providing you services that are excellent, while also providing advertisers access to your willing eyeballs when you use those services.

Yes, the advertising targeting is incredibly invasive, but let's not pretend they aren't providing world class Search, Email, Docs, Maps, Video (YT), etc in exchange.

I've honestly never understood why F-Droid even still exists. Every time I've tried to use it (as recently as half a year ago) it's still a shitshow and never displays or updates apps correctly. Half the time an app showed up on the website that didn't show up on the phone app. The other half of the time even when I did get something installed, it would just never understand that an update existed and needed to download and update a given app. It's one of the worst pieces of software I've used in a while, and I can tolerate a good bit of jank from FOSS apps.

> > a Google Account that isn't tied to anything else.

> Isn't that pretty much impossible? You need a phone number for verification, which effectively ties it to that phone number.

I just want to follow-up on this because some people claim this is not correct because they have managed to create accounts without phone numbers.

Indeed, I think to this day, under special circumstances (like e.g. on reasonably recent Android devices) you might be able to setup a Google account without phone number.

The trick is, that in the general case, you can not keep this account online indefinitely.

I once worked out a trick to get it going and I was feeling safe because I had setup 2FA and backup codes (see https://masysma.net/37/google_how_to_create_an_account_witho...).

First thing to note: This way of account creation does not seem to work anymore.

Second thing to note: After once logging in from a different country, trying to login again REQUIRES me to provide a phone number after successfully giving username/password/2FA code. No way to use the recovery code instead...

Also, given that this account was never before connected to a phone of any kind, by definition, the addition of a phone number cannot provide additional security confirmation (it's data that simply wasn't present before and any "personal" phone number could potentially do -- of course I haven't tried, because that's the point of not linking a phone number).

I think this way it is finally proven that they only do this to harvest the data/phone numbers and any claim of enhanced security is void.

I write this after having lost the second account to the phone number required screen despite being in possession of all the credentials which were ever assigned to that account...

You can create an account with no phone number during Android device setup.

You can also just get a burner phone number for a few bucks.

Accounts created on stock Pixels don’t require phone numbers.

This is exactly why I switched to Aurora. I couldn't even install Balatro from the Play Store.

I have similar problems installing region locked apps as someone who's fairly frequently in different regions.

Do you trust the banking app installed from Aurora enough to do your online banking? I don't, and I really wish there would be a decent way to verify that the installed/provided apps are legit. For me this is the biggest downside of using GrapheneOS, which I'm otherwise extremely happy with.

(for me, the whole point of using GrapheneOS is privacy and not sending data to Google, so using the PlayStore is not an option)

GrapheneOS is focused on privacy but that must come from a secure baseline.

GrapheneOS is much more privacy focussd than any other mobile operating system. Accrescent is the end goal for a secure and private app store but it's still in alpha. GrapheneOS is also the best for degoogling (eliminating all google services) because it comes with zero Google services unlike all the other ones listed here: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

How can you call other OSes more privacy focused when they haven't closed as many VPN leaks as GrapheneOS? That's like bare minimum for privacy.

The government didnt ask google, they changed the name on the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), which is the official legal mapping source which other companies like Google etc use. Hence the change filtered down through software from the top official channel.

Name changes happen all the time and I would expect Google to match what the government sources use locally. The fact that the government is capricious is no reason for me to desire Google to become an alternative naming center.

If you create it on a stock Pixel device the phone requirement gets dropped.

It's the SomethingAwful model: go to the store and find the cheapest Android phone from some prepaid company for :tenbux: then use it to set up your Google account during out-of-box-setup while on the store's free public WiFi (since Google OOBE allows free account creation without a number or existing email), then toss the phone in a drawer afterwards.

"Hope ya got ten bucks!"

(I got a random 5G Moto phone for ~$10 on clearance and it was an absolute shitter of a phone full of garbage packed in malware, but after cleaning and debloating as much as I can, it's at least a nifty toy to poke at Termux or something.)

They're both security, just security "against" different things. Graphene frequently fails to clearly describe the threat model when calling something "more secure".

For example, let's say hypothetically I want to be secure against the threat of Google pushing a targeted update to my phone that runs malicious code. Turning on automatic software updates from Google would make me vulnerable to that threat. Using MicroG instead of Google Play Services would make me less vulnerable to that threat. But Graphene devs say things like "MicroG is less secure than Google Play Services".

Similarly, if you want privacy you might secure your device by locking the bootloader with your own keys - not a third-party vendor's keys. Saying that's "insecure" is extremely misleading: it just puts you in charge of security, instead of abdicating to someone else.

I wish there were something like GrapheneOS that let you choose, yourself, who to trust instead of requiring you trust an OS vendor implicitly.

They actually ban people from their Discord (which is their official support channel - so much for privacy/security!) for mentioning F-Droid. I'm starting to think the creator of F-Droid must have run over their dog.

This is the exact reason I quit using Graphene. It felt exactly like selling out control of my device to the Graphene devs in the same way a stock phone is controlled by Google.

Far, far too "opinionated" for my taste. I frankly do not need the hyper paranoid security features like a hardened memory allocator or disabled root. I would rather be able to use my device the way I want, even if that's notionally "less secure".

I really wish there were another option. Lineage is too far in the opposite direction and feels like ad-blocked stock. Google still owns my phone, there's just a more pleasant coat of paint on it.

FYI, there are ungoogled chromium builds for Android. Firefox Mobile really is a lackluster browser unfortunately both from a usability and security standpoint (e.g. IonStack worked on Fennec)

> Everyone generally understands that different people have different threat models

Citation needed. If there are such people in what can be considered a grapheneos community that haven't gotten fed up yet and left, grapheneos themselves sure doesn't understand this

> Otherwise everyone would be using GOS in airplane mode with disabled cameras and only paying for things with Monero.

Nah, they're fine with tracking, so long as it happens in their sandbox. The official website has an install guide for google's background services, saying it's fine because it's in their security model. So long as the modem and camera firmware can't access your contacts, there is no tracking in baghdad

Is it not possible to just download the updated whatsapp apk from some online source? That is the benefit of android after all, side loading is still possible relatively easily.

Well, i emailed the DMA team at the European Commission, they don't plan to do anything to Keep Android Open.

Apple moved first with making a special 'sideloading' case for apps not under their control, Google is just copying what they did.

No more free sideloading.

The fact that no one wants to bear the cost to pre-load it on devices, when combined with the fact that it's not nearly as easy to install OSes on mobile devices as it is on most laptop/desktop/server machines, means that it might as well be closed-source. The point of software is to be executed. If I don't have a good way to execute the software for its intended purpose, I have a collection of ones and zeros, and nothing more.

The window to have a real open mobile OS is starting to close. If there is to be a meaningful change, it must happen soon.

The entire point is so you don't have to have a google account. Aurora actually works fine if you do sign in. This is just blocking anon downloads.

Yeah, was confused. I'm on GrapheneOS and don't even know what Aurora is.

They don't. It's unreliable but they have fixed security issues.

I'm using my Proton account in my phone and in play store. now i tried adding my proton account in AuroraStore, and it worked flawlessly. so my question: why AuroraStore uses google accounts instead of another providers?

How does one even create a new google account in $current_year without requiring phone verification or worse?