Notices by GrapheneOS (grapheneos@grapheneos.social), page 3

It doesn't stop there. It would require keeping data for auditing and providing a token for connecting age verification checks by apps and websites to the data. The law is a privacy disaster and exposes minors to being exploited by leaking their age bracket to apps and websites.

GrapheneOS has no team members or operations in Brazil. São Paulo in Brazil is by far the biggest network hub within South America. Miami is also a major network hub for South America and is currently where our update server is for South America since it's dramatically cheaper.

We have a tiny VPS in São Paulo for our ns1 anycast DNS and a second for our website/network services. It probably isn't an issue and those can be removed if necessary. Santiago could be added for both instead but wouldn't work very well as a replacement for having São Paulo.

People are going to have their personal info leaked by third party age verification services due to these laws. Children are going to be harmed by apps and websites changing their behavior to exploit them. It isn't going to stop minors finding pornography if they want to find it.

There aren't yet devices supporting GrapheneOS directly sold in South America. Brazil in particular has unusually high import duties/taxes which add up to around 100%. This has resulted in us not having a lot of users there but our Motorola partnership will start changing this.

Brazil's authoritarian age verification law became active this month. It won't be implemented by GrapheneOS. Complying would require integrating a mandatory process for each user where a third party service checks government identification and confirms a match using the camera.

There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis. It's a very strange situation. How do these people have so much time and dedication to keep making posts across platforms attacking us? It's relentless.

@aral These laws dictating the information can only be used for gating access based on age is beyond ridiculous. There's no doubt they're aware it's going to be heavily used beyond the permitted use. It cannot be excused as naivety. These same governments often treat birth dates as highly sensitive information usable as a core part of authenticating people's identity. Meanwhile, they're passing laws forcing operating systems and browsers to leak the birth dates of minors to apps and websites.

@aral The laws being proposed and passed requiring providing age brackets to apps and websites are a horrific invasion of privacy for minors putting their safety at risk. It not only enables targeting minors in harmful ways particularly for the lowest age brackets but also leaks their birth date to apps and websites on the day they move into the next age bracket. One of the biggest lobbyists for these OS level age verification laws is Meta which just lost a court case for exploiting minors.

GrapheneOS will remain usable by anyone around the world without requiring personal information, identification or an account. GrapheneOS and our services will remain available internationally. If GrapheneOS devices can't be sold in a region due to their regulations, so be it.

@vollaficationist We've been actively fighting against the Play Integrity API for years and now. Unified Attestation is another anti-competitive system very similar to it. We're absolutely going to fight against it as much as we have been against the Play Integrity API. Android hardware attestation is an issue itself due to being primarily designed around root-based attestation. We convinced them to add proper pinning-based verification support to make it a real security feature for our usage.

@vollaficationist Android hardware attestation can already be used to permit arbitrary roots of trust and arbitrary operating systems. There's no need for a centralized system based in Europe built on top of it.

It would be better if root-based attestation didn't exist because it's fundamentally insecure for anything serious and primarily useful for anti-competitive and authoritarian purposes. Pinning-based attestation is what's useful for protecting users rather than controlling people.

@vollaficationist @volla Unified Attestation is the direct opposite of keeping Android open. It's an anti-competitive centralized system putting Volla and other companies selling devices working with them in control of which devices and operating systems people are allowed to use. It's the direct opposite of open. There's nothing neutral or fair about companies approving using their products while disallowing others. Unified Attestation needs to be stopped.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116239523775374959

@vollaficationist Unified Attestation includes multiple companies hostile towards GrapheneOS. They've spent years misleading people about GrapheneOS and making attacks on our team. Unified Attestation gives them veto power over app compatibility on GrapheneOS. It puts them in a position where they can harm GrapheneOS with unreasonable requirements and disingenuous concerns to reduce app compatibility. It's also clearly an illegal anti-competitive cartel and participating wouldn't be legal.

@vollaficationist Unified Attestation is nothing more than an anti-competitive power grab via a centralized service sitting on top of Android hardware attestation. There has yet to be any valid explanation for why this has been created. It would be entirely possible to have neutral organizations certifying devices and publishing those certificates as signed data usable with Android hardware attestation. There's no valid reason to have a centralized service under the control of these companies.

@vollaficationist GrapheneOS won't participate in any system which requires us to delay our releases while waiting for certification. That's inherently anti-security and is completely unacceptable. We also won't give any companies or organizations veto power over app compatibility on GrapheneOS. It's a horrible idea and we're not going to let it happen. We won't participate and we'll file a lawsuit over the fact GrapheneOS is being banned by companies selling products threatened by GrapheneOS.

@vollaficationist The EU has been passing laws working towards banning end-to-end encryption and secure devices. It's completely unacceptable to have an EU-based system controlling which hardware and software is allowed to be used. GrapheneOS is not going to participate in bringing about our own downfall through helping to build or legitimize a system which could be used by EU governments to ban GrapheneOS. Play Integrity API should be banned rather than giving it legitimacy making another one.

We strongly oppose the Unified Attestation initiative and call for app developers supporting privacy, security and freedom on mobile to avoid it. Companies selling phones should not be deciding which operating systems people are allowed to use for apps.

https://uattest.net/

@lumi @alexia GrapheneOS and the Android Open Source Project are Linux distributions. We strongly disagree with the premise that glibc, systemd and GNOME are preferable to the much more private and secure AOSP software stack. Moving to the desktop software stack would be a huge regression for nearly everything we care about and focus on improving. It's already possible to run desktop Linux apps in GrapheneOS including GUI apps via the hardware virtualization support and there's a desktop mode.

We're happy to announce a long-term partnership with Motorola. We're collaborating on future devices meeting our privacy and security standards with official GrapheneOS support.

https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at-mwc-2026/