Delete GrapheneOS? We Need to Talk...

Why It Matters

Accurate coverage of GrapheneOS is crucial for user trust and the broader privacy ecosystem, as misinformation can deter adoption of the most secure mobile platform available.

Key Takeaways

• Wired's article misrepresents GrapheneOS founders and internal conflicts.
• Daniel McKay prioritized open-source privacy over profit, rejecting corporate deals.
• James Donaldson allegedly pushed for monetization, including defense contracts.
• Controversy stems from personal drama, not technical security shortcomings.
• GrapheneOS remains the most hardened, fully anonymous Android platform.

Summary

The video attacks Wired’s recent piece on GrapheneOS, arguing it distorts the project’s origins and the motives of its founders. It claims the story centers on co‑founder James Donaldson while omitting third founder Dan McCrady, and paints Daniel McKay as a “despot” despite his decade‑long commitment to open‑source privacy. Key insights include McKay’s refusal to commercialize the OS, his reliance on GitHub donations, and Donaldson’s push to monetize the code through defense contracts and even criminal customers. The narrator alleges Donaldson sought access to the OS signing keys, prompting McKay to destroy them and abandon the predecessor project, Copper OS, to launch GrapheneOS as a fully open‑source, nonprofit effort. Specific examples cited are Wired’s reliance on Donaldson’s narrative, the omission of McKay’s early work that Google later adopted, and accusations that Donaldson stole $300,000 in Bitcoin donations. The video also references personal feuds with tech commentators that have led to character‑assassination videos and unwarranted warnings against GrapheneOS. The broader implication is that mischaracterizing a leading privacy platform can erode community trust, discourage adoption, and shift focus from technical merits to personal drama, potentially weakening the ecosystem of open‑source security tools.

Original Description

GrapheneOS is inevitable. Support my work: https://www.patreon.com/thehatedone

The most private... no scratch that. The only private phone on the planet is under attack. For years, I've been biting my tongue, but I am done. This is my truth about GrapheneOS. Because I am done being polite to fragile egos with failed ambitions.

When you can't take down a security project because it's open source and thus will live forever, what do you do?

When you can't take down a security project based on the merits of security because it's by far the very best available anywhere, what do you do?

The only thing you can do is to vilify the very existence of the project. You try to convince people that only criminals would want privacy and security. This is already happening.

Another way you can do this is to portray the project itself as a fruit of a deranged crank of paranoid anti-social despots who can't be trusted. This is also happening. I was holding back from telling you the truth but no more. The damage that's being done to what I think is the most important project of our lifetimes, is unacceptable. I am the Hated One after all. So here is the tea. Bridges can't be burned if they don't exist, right?

This is where I draw the line. I am not here to tell you you have to like Daniel Micay. But I am not gonna let you pretend you can just discard his work because of his personality traits. Daniel Micay has done more for security and privacy than all of his critics combined. Literally. No other security project comes even close to what GrapheneOS offers.

GrapheneOS has security hardening features unavailable anywhere else. It has a hardened memory allocator, hardened SELinux polices, hardened webview and web browser, hardened sandboxing and exploit protections, better defaults, better privacy, it is actually the only fully anonymous device in existence and it is the only phone capable of completely sandboxing Google without any privileged permissions. The list of improvements goes on for many pages.

Most people though don't understand any of the technicals I just mentioned. But they do understand the drama. The problem is that it is these technical facts that should convince you that all these people who are disparaging GrapheneOS and Daniel Micay's work are all wrong. Anyone recommending against a privacy project because of drama is a fraud and shouldn't be taken seriously.

And despite his character flaws, Daniel Micay has been a principled leader of his security project. He made the right decision to sever ties with CopperheadOS. He made the right decision to keep his work open source. He made the right decision to repel corporate interest in his project and keep it non-profit.

This idea to repel corporate interest appeals to me too. I am inspired by Micay's decision here because I too reject corporate interest. I refused lucrative sponsors because they would introduce a conflict of interest to my privacy videos. The same can't be said of those that sought to kill Micay's character. So like Micay, I too am funded by donations on my Patreon.

I think you should honor that. You should support GrapheneOS and you should support my work. People like us are fighting for your privacy and your freedom with principles. What I do pales in comparison to what Daniel Micay does. I am giving it my all. The ball is in your court.

Follow me:

https://twitter.com/The_HatedOne_

https://www.reddit.com/r/thehatedone/

The footage and images featured in the video were for critical analysis, commentary and parody, which are protected under the Fair Use laws of the United States Copyright act of 1976.