Google deliberately sabotaging Pixel/Android security. GrapheneOS the answer?

Is there a reason Google dropped its motto 'Don't be evil' from its Code of Conduct? 

So that it could be 'evil'?

Google is quite simply deliberately leaving Pixel and even Android users (from other manufacturers) vulnerable to security attacks.

Google’s Pixel smartphones are specifically taken care of, in terms of security updates via

Pixel Update Bulletins, e.g. for September 2026, in the following listing:

https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/pixel/2026/2026-09-01

Other Android users, e.g. Samsung, Sony, Motorola, etc obtain their security patches according to the listings within a link called Android Security Bulletins, in this case for September 2026 under the address:

https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2026/2026-09-01

Currently THE privacy and security gold standard smartphone operating system is GrapheneOS, which is only available for Pixel smartphones at this moment, where it will be also available initially on the 2027 Signature Series flagship Motorola phone at some point in time in the future.

Information has been leaked, that Cellebrite’s (smartphone hacking) hardware cannot obtain data from an up to date GrapheneOS supported Pixel phone in a BFU (Before First Unlock) state, that is encrypted and with a strong passcode.

Cellebrite leak posted on GrapheneOS Discussion Forum

A key component of the security of the smartphone is something called MTE (Memory Tagging Extension), where it was concluded that Google did not incorporate or disabled this hardware function in the new Pixel 11 series smartphone. 

Therefore it can be deduced that Google is ‘deliberately’ weakening the security of their smartphones, in order for the 5 Eyes authorities (and Israel) to gain access to the phones (?), where after all, it is subservient within the domain of the 5 Eyes ‘Anglo Sphere’ global surveillance network.

In order to further weaken the security of Android, Google does not release security patches in a timely manner as it did once before.

‘Luckily’ for GrapheneOS users, the small developer team can produce better security patches than a multi-billion dollar corporation.

People running corporations in this manner know full well that the law takes a while to catch up to their ‘shenanigans’ and exploit this fact.

See GrapheneOS' post in relation to this problem

within the link:

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/42511-grapheneos-has-fixed-the-massive-android-17-qpr1-kernel-performance-regression

How a US law can reach Australia's shore: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702

FISA Section 702

A One Page Overview

In 2008, Congress enacted Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a critical intelligence collection authority that enables the Intelligence Community (IC) to collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats. Section 702 authorizes targeted intelligence collection of specific types of foreign intelligence information—such as information concerning international terrorism or the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction—identified by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Section 702 only permits the targeting of non-United States persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. United States persons and anyone in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702. Section 702 also prohibits “reverse targeting”—the IC may not target a non-U.S. person located outside the U.S. if the purpose of the collection is to collect information about a United States person or anyone located in the United States.

Section 702 is not a bulk collection program; it is a substantial and important targeted intelligence collection program. Every Section 702 targeting decision is individualized and documented, approved pursuant to a multi-step process embodied in specific targeting procedures, and reviewed by an independent oversight team.

Although all Section 702 targets must be non-United States persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, Congress has always recognized that such targets may send an email or have a phone call with a United States person. For this reason, Section 702 requires specific procedures to minimize the acquisition, retention, and sharing of any information concerning United States persons. “Minimize,” however, does not always mean “eliminate” – if, for example, a foreign terrorist indicated that a United States person was a key member of an ongoing terrorist plot, this information would be appropriately shared to allow the FBI to take further investigative steps. Congress also amended Section 702 to require specific procedures to ensure the querying of any Section 702-acquired information is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The Section 702 program is subject to extensive oversight. The Attorney General must approve the targeting, minimization, and querying procedures, each of which are annually reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for consistency with the FISA statute and the Fourth Amendment. Each of the IC elements involved in the Section 702 program has developed internal oversight processes and programs to ensure compliance with these procedures. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct extensive, regular, and independent reviews of Section 702 activities. Any identified compliance errors are remedied and reported to the FISC and Congress.

Further Reading FISA Resource Library

Download the PDF from: https://www.intel.gov/assets/documents/fisa/FISA_Section_702_FISA_Resource_Library.pdf

Australians don’t have the legal right to ‘their’ data held by corporations?

In today’s online world, it’s all about a fascist state, or as it’s colloquially known, ‘big data'.

It’s all about subservience to online corporations, where the ‘product’ has little to zero so called ‘rights’.

In order to appease the online slaves, so that there is no ‘revolt’ like in England in 1381, the corporate whores called ‘lawmakers’ in the US and EU have allegedly given the products some rights to access ‘their’ data, or rather data regarding their ‘person’.

Even when a person does obtain a file on themselves from the corporation in question, 

- what guarantee does that person have that the information obtained is in it’s entirety and not modified in any manner?

None, there is no guarantee, where it’s concerning as (people) in corporations lie to the general population every single day.

In any event, want to see what low quality food products manufacturer ‘McChuck’s’ has on your person in Australia?

“FAT’ CHANCE"! (pun intended)

See YouTube video by The Hate One of the title:

I was WARNING you about this...

IF you obtain all your tech/information technology, advice from the Australian mainstream media, you are truly doing yourself a disservice!