The Hobbyist

Some apps will rely on Google services to determine whether they are running on a “secure” device (ie determined by Google). This is refered to as hardware attestation. But there is a Google version of it and a generic version of it (which is implemented in GrapheneOS). If the bank relies on the Google version, it will fail on GrapheneOS, despite actually having hardware attestation.

You can read more about it here : https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide

https://serverpartdeals.com/

I’m personally satisfied with the statement, position and reflection on the issue.

It was a fuck-up to publicly respond to donaldtrump in what could be seen as an endorsement. This was acknowledged and remedied.

The no politics stance is probably unavoidable, as mentioned but they should never focus on political parties, but on defending the values, this is what is clarified and that’s best. We should accept to support a bill strengthening privacy even if it may come from a political party we generally do not support. Denying our support to such a bill would not strengthen the core value we defend. And as individuals we may still criticize all other activities of such a political party if we disagree with others of their activities.

As a community, I hope we can come together, and resist the temptation of purity tests, and acknowledge that we are all fighting for the same cause, no matter our perspective on other issues. We need the support of everyone.

I’m not sure because a bank being absent from such a list could either mean the compatibility is known to be functional or unknown. And that’s very different and I would argue a very critical difference.

As a user I would definitely care most about a list of functional banks and that is what we have. What you propose, while it has its value, would not be actionable to users due to the ambiguity I raised above.