GrapheneOS actually recommends against using Aurora and instead just using the Play Store, so this shouldn't really hurt users.

For extra privacy, you can sign into the Play Store with a Google Account that isn't tied to anything else.

▲ DaSHacka 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Although the nice thing about Aurora Store is it allows you to install apps without a google account linked to your device, keeping Google Play Services signed-out.

Somewhere in the FAQ GOS advertises that Play Services can be used without signing in, but they also recommend the official Play Store (which requires signing in) and explicitly don't recommend Aurora (which doesn't).

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how you can functionally use Play Services signed-out when in order to obtain those apps in the first place, you need to sign into a Google Account for Google Play.

That's personally what I used Aurora for, plus as an easy way to export APK files.

▲ juiceland an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Google Account that isn't tied to anything else.

At the risk of being a privacy absolutist / fatalist: Google’s entire business model is surveillance. They follow you around and track your habits so you can be influenced. Given that, a Google account is always tied to something else.

▲ tredre3 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm under no illusion that google doesn't know I own my multiple accounts. They most certainly do. I usually use the same user agent (with containers) on the same IP, after all.

But my goal is to avoid a stranger gaining access to my google services if they manage to unlock a lost device or steal my TV/streaming box that has no lock at all.

I wish Google supported a permission system per device. For example on most of my android devices all I really want is to be logged into Youtube and the play store. I most certainly do not want those devices to have access to my contacts, emails, calendar, keep, drive, payment, etc. (I don't personally use all of those things, but you might and that's what a random thief would gain access to.)

	▲	deepsun 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yep, something like checkboxes on login: `- ALL: Log me in to all Google Services - Calendar - GMail - YouTube - ...` Adding more would require to login anew.

▲ josefresco an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Piggybacking on this... I create my fair share of "burner accounts" and almost always they (not just Google) connect it to my true identity. Granted I'm not using VPNs or really trying to hide the connection but it seems trivial for them to associate.

	▲	Forgeties79 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		My experience has been that all the consumer privacy/security tools are varying degrees of “good” at keeping away bad actors, trackers, advertisers, and most third parties, but when it comes to the big dogs, there’s nothing you can really do to stop them. Google, Facebook, etc. just have too many data points already available to them so they can easily build a picture of you. There are simply too many services that have them running around in the background or just straight up depend on them. All you can do is leave their ecosystem as much as you can and accept you will never be fully rid of them

▲ joekrill 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> a Google Account that isn't tied to anything else.

Isn't that pretty much impossible? You need a phone number for verification, which effectively ties it to that phone number.

▲ megagpt1 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can create an account with no phone number during Android device setup.

You can also just get a burner phone number for a few bucks.

▲ armadyl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Accounts created on stock Pixels don’t require phone numbers.

▲ iririririr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

that haven't been true since pixel 4. it just picks your phone in the background.

a burner sim, like a literal criminal, is the only way today.

▲ alt227 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Its possible to set up a phone with a google account without even a sim card in it and use it as a wifi only device, so Im pretty sure what your saying is wrong.

▲ asnelt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even with a burner sim, there is the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, which is tied to the phone, and is known to all apps with the android.permission.READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE permission.

▲ exceptione an hour ago | parent [-]

That can't be true? <https://grapheneos.org/faq#hardware-identifiers>

  As of Android 10, apps cannot obtain permission to access non-resettable hardware identifiers such as the serial number, MAC addresses, IMEIs/MEIDs, SIM card serial numbers and subscriber IDs. Only privileged apps included in the base system with READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE whitelisted can access these hardware identifiers. Apps targeting Android 10 will receive a SecurityException and older apps will receive an empty value for compatibility. The currently enabled carrier-based messaging app for SMS/MMS/RCS is a special case that's given access to certain device identifiers including the IMEI. This is normally the GrapheneOS fork of AOSP Messaging but can be changed to another app by the user.

  Since these restrictions became standard, GrapheneOS only makes a small change to remove a legacy form of access to the serial number by legacy apps, which was still around for compatibility. It used to need more extensive changes such as disallowing access to the serial number but those restrictions are now standard.

I don't know however if sandboxed google play is such a privileged app.

▲ asnelt an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I couldn't immediately find whether GrapheneOS grants READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE to Google Play. It might very well be that the GrapheneOS sandbox spoofs a fake IMEI, and I do hope so.

In any case, my parent comment was meant for stock Pixels, as mentioned by armadyl further up in this thread.

▲ nickspacek an hour ago | parent [-]

https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play

> Google Play receives absolutely no special access or privileges on GrapheneOS as opposed to bypassing the app sandbox and receiving a massive amount of highly privileged access.

It doesn't mention IMEI here, but hopefully READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE is included in "privileged access."

▲ exceptione 6 minutes ago | parent [-]

There is an AppStore app, I am not sure if this is the one we are talking about? <https://github.com/GrapheneOS/AppStore/blob/main/app/src/mai...>

That one lists:

  ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE
  ENFORCE_UPDATE_OWNERSHIP
  FOREGROUND_SERVICE
  FOREGROUND_SERVICE_SPECIAL_USE
  INSTALL_PACKAGES
  INTERNET
  POST_NOTIFICATIONS
  QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES
  RECEIVE_BOOT_COMPLETED
  REQUEST_DELETE_PACKAGES
  REQUEST_INSTALL_PACKAGES
  UPDATE_PACKAGES_WITHOUT_USER_ACTION

▲ mindslight 5 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

That's the application software side. I would assume the IMEI and IMSI are both going out to the cell network though, and I would presume that it's trivial to tie a phone number to those with how the mobile industry generally sells subscriber data to various data brokers. The only question is how permissive those data brokers are (their major constraint is how much most people become aware of this dynamic), but when dealing with a major APT like Google I'd assume they're tuned into the best ones with songs about bona fide purposes.

▲ goodmythical an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

assuming the number you get hasn't previously been assigned to a google account

	▲	drxzcl 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I've had no end of trouble registering an account on our corporate SIMs as the phone numbers (not the actual SIM cards) had been recycled as employees leave.

▲ megagpt5 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It still works without a SIM card, how do you explain that?

▲ dmantis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sometimes you just can't.

For example, the banking app I have refuses to be installed from the Play Store on GrapheneOS due to "not-certified" device, but works perfectly fine when installed by Aurora.

The check seems to be purely store-based and never enforced later.

	▲	CivBase 25 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is exactly why I switches to Aurora. I couldn't even install Balatro from the Play Store.
	▲	suddenlybananas 36 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I have similar problems installing region locked apps as someone who's fairly frequently in different regions.

▲ slome 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A Google account is a personal identifier, it is linked to your person. Therefor trying to untie it from anything else is futile.

Google states: Using a false name or incorrect information when creating a Google account is against Google's Terms of Service.

▲ amaccuish an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

GrapheneOS is focused on absolute security. For those of us on more privacy-oriented ROMs with MicroG, we're very happy with Aurora.

▲

Cider9986 an hour ago | parent [-]

GrapheneOS is focused on privacy but that must come from a secure baseline.

GrapheneOS is much more privacy focussd than any other mobile operating system. Accrescent is the end goal for a secure and private app store but it's still in alpha. GrapheneOS is also the best for degoogling (eliminating all google services) because it comes with zero Google services unlike all the other ones listed here: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

How can you call other OSes more privacy focused when they haven't closed as many VPN leaks as GrapheneOS? That's like bare minimum for privacy.

	▲	lol768 4 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Accrescent is the end goal for a secure and private app store but it's still in alpha Note that nobody (new) can submit to it today; the developer console HTTP 503s and is only available to an allow-list of developers.
	▲	dingaling 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The problem is that to achieve privacy through security, Graphene has to treat the user as a potentially hostile actor. Therefore, the system needs to protect itself and other apps from the user. Which is very much contrary to software freedom.

▲ hadlock an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems wise to have at least one alternative mobile phone app store. Even if it isn't very good. If the government can tell Google to do trivial things like, for example, change the name of bodies (plural now) of water, it can turn off your app updates, trapping you on insecure versions indefinitely. This probably matters more if you live outside of the US, but if I had a plan B for an app store on my phone, I would certainly at least evaluate it.

	▲	alt227 2 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The government didnt ask google, they changed the name on the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), which is the official legal mapping source which other companies like Google etc use. Hence the change filtered down through software from the top official channel.
	▲	arjie 39 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Name changes happen all the time and I would expect Google to match what the government sources use locally. The fact that the government is capricious is no reason for me to desire Google to become an alternative naming center.

▲ khriss an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> you can sign into the Play Store with a Google Account that isn't tied to anything else.

The problem with this is that increasingly Google is insisting on having a phone number to create a Google account. Further, they are aggressively deleting old accounts that appear to be dormant.

The good old days of creating a Google account with just an email seem to be swiftly becoming a thing of the past.

▲ SahAssar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Having to have a account is absolutely a downgrade and privacy-hostile.

▲ talon8635 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Doesn’t Google make it very hard to create an account tied to nothing (no phone or alt email)?

▲

armadyl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you create it on a stock Pixel device the phone requirement gets dropped.

▲

talon8635 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s undoubtedly tied to the phone with is tied to the owner

▲

gruez 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People report that it works even on grapheneos with sandboxed google play. My guess there's some fingerprinting going on, not necessarily that they're tying the account to some account id.

	▲	NewJazz an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I tried and it didn't work, it kept asking for my phone number.

▲

armadyl 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well yeah. But if you care about anonymity on that level there are ways around that (i.e. buying in cash and creating the account using public WiFi).

▲

weezing 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

How is your phone tied to you? You bought it through GOogle store?

▲

burningChrome an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

kotaKat an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's the SomethingAwful model: go to the store and find the cheapest Android phone from some prepaid company for :tenbux: then use it to set up your Google account during out-of-box-setup while on the store's free public WiFi (since Google OOBE allows free account creation without a number or existing email), then toss the phone in a drawer afterwards.

"Hope ya got ten bucks!"

(I got a random 5G Moto phone for ~$10 on clearance and it was an absolute shitter of a phone full of garbage packed in malware, but after cleaning and debloating as much as I can, it's at least a nifty toy to poke at Termux or something.)

▲ halyconWays an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"For extra privacy, you can sign into the Play Store with a Google Account that isn't tied to anything else."

lol. lamo, even.