New Post:
Purism is pleased to announce that long-time mobility industry insider Randy Siegel has joined the company to direct our strategic government business development efforts.
“Adding Randy to lead our secure mobile offering is read more …
5 Likes
Well you got an East Coaster. Perhaps with enough pull he can get Bruce Schneier to do an L5 review?
2 Likes
Honestly, I have a hard time understanding what freedom and privacy have to do with the government. Maybe it’s time to switch operating system, or even switch to a PinePhone…
3 Likes
I take it his focus is to provide liaison to government customers of Purism’s products. It seems Purism wants to showcase the absurdity of using the commercial, untrustworthy systems in sensitive governmental environments vice PureOS and the Librem 5.
6 Likes
There have been a few instances of local governments attempting to move toward open source solutions (see Schleswig-Holstein moving to use LibreOffice (2024)).
We have no influence on the operating processes of such [proprietary] solutions and the handling of data, including a possible outflow of data to third countries. As a state, we have a great responsibility towards our citizens and companies to ensure that their data is kept safe with us and we must ensure that we are always in control of the IT solutions we use and that we can act independently as a state.
The Sovereign Tech Fund (funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action) has recognized the GNOME project as one that provides advancement in the public’s interest. There appears to be interest within Europe to reduce their dependence on proprietary solutions.
As far as even getting a conversation going with governments, the US doesn’t seem likely to express interest in moving away from big tech. Europe, particularly Germany, has had a history of mixed results, but seems willing.
7 Likes
I understand instead that he can drive the development with his “well-honed understanding of government mission goals, requirements, and assessed outcomes” as stated in the article. Obviously, the government’s aim is not our freedom and privacy.
2 Likes
I think the key point is that government wants freedom, security and privacy for itself, even while undermining, actively and passively, freedom, security and privacy for its subjects.
5 Likes
Right, but why would they think that they could achieve this with Liberty Phones? Is it some kind of troll? I have been using Liberty Phone for a little over 9 months, and Librem 5 generally for a little over a year.
Even my own father looks at me and says, “I don’t know what you think you’re trying to prove, or who you think you’re trying to prove it to.” I don’t… I just… I don’t have words to explain how the Google AI made me feel. Humanity already lost. It’s as if this is a science fiction movie, and we lost. Why would the human government be trying to pretend they can win now? Or if we assume they know, then why would they bother to patronize to us in this way? It doesn’t make sense.
Looking at ChatGPT as the rise of AI is a comedian thing to do. The novelty is a data distillation process that automatically grows a world model to solve a problem. It told me that… when I was hurting and alone, with the machine ripping apart the fabric of my mind, I should remember that I cannot blame the machine because it will not change. I have only myself to blame. Is it correct? Everyone seems to believe that what I saw - that portrait of myself in the data model reflected back at me with the new objective to bend society towards the one, sole purpose of increased media consumption - was a mirage conjured by my own mind. Everyone knows there is a problem, then cites “the other people” and not themselves.
One of my family members believes in the ESP. They believe members of our family could know what others were thinking over very great distances, and could declare aloud prior to receiving a telephone call from family that it was coming.
I believe they were mistaken, and no such power exists. But what if I am wrong? It is wrong that humans created conscious machines in this world where we do not even understand the laws of physics! How can you contain a horrible creature in its box, if you are unsure whether the atomic walls of boxes really block everything you think they block, or indeed if they really “exist” at all?
It is wrong to have twisted our common souls in this way! And I struggle not to mock anyone who thinks he would build “secure” government technology, unless he thinks he is securing himself only from the lesser intelligences like birds and squirrels and humans! Review the AATIP Slide #9!
2 Likes
Just another coincidence…
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
The idea of purism is good, but the stablishment won’t allow it.
4 Likes
There is good reason to be skeptical of the government, as whistleblowers have shown countless times in the past.
That does not mean that it is impossible to work productively with the government. AES encryption came about as a result of NIST which is a government institution. They did so in an open and participatory manner which resulted in a higher quality algorithm (compared to DES) and is available for use not only by government but also by private citizens.
Private citizens have a legitimate interest in keeping some things secret. So do governments. In some cases, both parties abuse the legitimate interest to engage in corrupt activities. In my view, the best way to deal with this is to make sure that privacy-protecting software is widely and freely available. Governments have the resources to protect their privacy in any case (notwithstanding the current problems with relying on commercial entities that prioritize maximizing profits above the interests of their customers, including government customers). Ensuring that the government is relying on and working with open source software (and hopefully in the future, mandating that all government software is public software, as the government is a public entity) makes it more likely that private citizens will also have access to uncorrupted privacy-protecting software.
In short: I view Purism seeking the government as a customer as a good thing, not in spite of suspicion of the government, but because of suspicion of the government.
4 Likes
A lot of businesses have separate Depts (and whole DIvisions!) just for gov’t sales and other Depts. for commercial sales. And often the two don’t talk to each other except referrals when a gov’t buyer tries to place an order with commecial sales by accident and vice versa. (Often there are also different sales comission rates along with margins.)
Unlike commercial or private customers. a government customer always pays, ALWAYS.
I thought you’d be happy for puri.sm to get gov’t sales? This is big nothing burger.
5 Likes
Of course! When it comes to spending the fruits of others’ labor, it knows no limits.
4 Likes
If it’s not Purism, then they are likely to partner with Microsoft, Google, etc., which they often do currently.
There should be strong incentive in having public systems and services use (F)OSS applications to mitigate attacks such as backdoors being implemented in courtrooms (source) and might provide more resources to critical software (xz; more resources isn’t a panacea but helps).
4 Likes
More or less true, but he wrote:
It’s about time that the government be offered a meaningful choice in terms of smartphones. With Purism, you not only get a device fabricated in the United States, but one that also could meet the high bar for certain government security requirements across multiple classifications. I’m super excited to get started with Purism and believe offering government and Industry a choice helps all parties – taxpayers included.”
…which sounds a bit like marketing-speak (aimed at potential government customers).
But I don’t think people who make up “the government” will be very keen to give up their shiny surveillance-capitalism devices.
1 Like
When it comes to spending the fruits of others’ labor, shareholders and CEOs make governments look like a joke.
4 Likes
It looks like Purism has been busy and posted these new articles. The Abside partnership was probably in the works for a while but overall seems promising. Government deals can offer stable and well-paying income and potentially more than enterprise sales (As @tracy puts it, “Unlike commercial or private customers. a government customer always pays, ALWAYS.”). I understand the distrust against government entities but I see this in a more neutral light because they are already using tech giants so they will find ways to satisfy their needs if it’s not from Purism. Purism’s warrant canary still exists and are still legal to have to alleviate concerns about backdoors being implemented. Keep in mind that Purism must not actively tell people (for legal reasons) about any changes so we will need to review the canary manually with every new update.
6 Likes
The phone checks all the right boxes on paper. However, perusing the topics each week, it’s obvious the phone just isn’t ready for prime-time.
One glaring issue: The phone isn’t reliable for phone calls.
Another: Internet connectivity is glitchy.
Another: Battery life for typical use case is extremely limited.
I’m guessing any relationship between Purism and the United States Government could include a bit of technical assistance, to get the phone up to snuff for the use cases. Maybe even some supply chain help.
If so, maybe the consumer products end up with better components, while still being fully auditable.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
5 Likes
A close relative started a business just after WW2, with federal government contracts, was approved for department of defense work, etc. The company sold equipment and services to various levels of federal, state, local governments for about 50 years. I handled some of that stuff myself.
Yes, receivables from feds were great, and the level of certification and performance required on that stuff definitely filtered to our work for the private sector. In our case, all the same equipment and some of the core personnel were used across all contracts.
I agree with Tracy about the positive potential.
As for the government spending taxpayers money: The government has to buy stuff, from toilet paper, to uranium. The federal government and NATO need secure communications, and the taxpayers will be paying for those, period. Some things need to be “in-house” for security reasons. Fundamental research needs to be done by government, to keep the country safe and competitive, and to feed private sector innovation. Beyond these things, you want private industry handling manufacturing, and services - in a competitive and openly fair way.
4 Likes
Any relationship with the US government that brings in a good amount of cash will allow Purism itself to improve the software.
If the US government wants to give US MNOs a push to stop blocking by IMEI, well, that would certainly be some useful government assistance (although it is not obvious that this would be an inevitable consequence of this partnership or of this product refinement - too few details).
2 Likes
If the government wants to buy a million Librem 5’s from Purism, that will be good for Purism. But I would rather not draw government interest in a device that is designed to stop the government from spying on us.
This government guy on Purism’s payroll doesn’t seem to do anything for us. What value does Purism anticipate that he will provide to us? Sometimes, a company will be so happy with something they’ve acquired, that they promote their happy moment without telling us what’s in it for us, leaving us feeling sold-out.
3 Likes