The War on Privacy
It's easy to fall into the story that only "bad actors" care about privacy. That narrative triggers an immediate, altruistic reaction: Why would we give child predators, criminals, or terrorists tools that keep them hidden? Nobody wants to protect people who would harm us. Yet today's discourse lumps anyone who safeguards personal information together with those same criminals.
A recent example shows how this happens. A journalist from Le Parisien contacted the GrapheneOS team with a loaded premise, framing the operating system as a "secure phone solution" favored by drug traffickers and other criminals. The resulting article cherry‑picked the team's replies, cited unverified law‑enforcement claims, and confused GrapheneOS with trademark‑infringing forks. Its translated headline summed up the narrative perfectly:
Why is privacy - something that has existed since the dawn of humanity - now portrayed as suspicious? Let's start by defining it.
What Is Privacy?
Benn Jordan, a musician and tech enthusiast, puts it simply: Privacy is a form of power that increases your control over your own destiny. More formally, privacy gives individuals the right to decide who can see their information, for what purpose, and under what conditions, while protecting that data from unwarranted intrusion or surveillance. In short, your life belongs to you: you choose what to share and what to keep private.
In the digital age, privacy is a crucial defense against relentless data collection and the commoditization of our personal lives. Even if you feel you have nothing to hide, you probably don't want a complete portrait of yourself assembled for marketers, governments, or malicious actors. With daily headlines about data breaches, protecting personal information is essential - not optional. It is simply self‑preservation at its highest level.
The Dual‑Use Fallacy as a Smear Tactic
There has never been a better time to adopt privacy tools. They are easier to use, and a growing number of competitors - many free and open‑source - are supported by passionate developers and donors. Open‑source code can be audited and security‑tested, and even many paid solutions now share their source, offering transparency rarely seen elsewhere.
As with GrapheneOS, any effective privacy tool or practice will be used by ordinary people - politicians, journalists, activists, abuse victims, and everyday citizens avoiding tracking - as well as a tiny minority of criminals. Media stories often highlight the criminal angle ("criminals love this!") while ignoring mainstream adoption.
This playbook has been used against:
- PGP encryption: "Only terrorists use it."
- Tor: "90 % of dark‑web crime."
- Signal: "Preferred by drug dealers."
- Cash: "Untraceable money for criminals."
Any tool that anyone can use to protect their data could also be used by a criminal. History shows the same pattern for countless products and technologies. One could just as easily claim, "Drug dealers use plastic bags..." or "Criminals use cars to flee a crime scene..." Both statements ignore the fact that millions use these items daily.
In reality, human‑rights organizations, opposition politicians, journalists, corporate security teams, and even some law‑enforcement officers rely on these tools. Yet the headline "privacy tool used by criminals" generates clicks and fuels calls for bans or backdoors.
Privacy is Now a Political Flashpoint
Governments worldwide are tightening data‑protection laws (e.g., GDPR in Europe, California CCPA) while simultaneously pushing legislation that can compel tech companies to hand over data under certain circumstances. Many are even proposing "back doors" that would not only allow the authorities access but bad actors as well.
When a tool like GrapheneOS explicitly limits data collection, it sits at the intersection of those competing policy trends, making it a natural target for stories about "national security" or "law‑enforcement access."
Some political actors frame strong privacy tools as "obstructionist" or "anti‑law‑enforcement," especially when they are used by opposition candidates, activists, journalists, or dissidents. Media coverage often mirrors those narratives, either because they align with editorial stances or because they generate clicks through controversy.
Let's not forget that many readers lack deep knowledge of operating‑system hardening, sandboxing, or cryptographic guarantees. Media pieces sometimes oversimplify, portraying "hardening" as "making phones unusable" or "restricting freedom." Sensational headlines, like "Your phone could be dangerous if you switch to GrapheneOS" attract clicks even if they misrepresent the reality.
All of the narratives work to enforce a cultural bias toward convenience over privacy. Most users prioritize seamless experiences. When a privacy‑focused OS requires extra steps, media outlets can portray it as "impractical for everyday use," reinforcing a cultural narrative that privacy is a niche concern rather than a mainstream demand.
Broader Societal Shift Toward Surveillance Normalization
In an era of rising cyber threats and political instability, there's a push to normalize mass surveillance. Privacy tools challenge this by empowering individuals, so media portrayals frame them as suspicious or elitist. This dovetails with global trends, like U.S. concerns over app stores enabling corporate control or Pegasus spyware scandals, where strong OSes like GrapheneOS mitigate remote hacks.
In essence, these attacks aren't about GrapheneOS specifically but about eroding trust in privacy tech to pave the way for mandatory surveillance. As GrapheneOS notes, criminals using secure tools (like they use cars or cash) doesn't invalidate them - it's a testament to their effectiveness. The importance stems from escalating regulatory battles; without pushback, tools like this could face outright bans, harming everyday users seeking protection.
Takeaway
Media attention on GrapheneOS isn’t merely about its use; it reflects a broader clash between:
- Privacy‑enhancing technology: Limits data collection
- State and commercial actors: Who rely on data access for security or revenue
- Public perception: Shaped by sensational headlines
Understanding these layers can help you sift through the noise and assess whether the criticisms are rooted in genuine security concerns or are primarily driven by political/economic agendas. Always be skeptical of any claims that are not from an informed and trusted source, especially when it's related to your privacy.
Remember: We may not have anything to hide, but everything to protect.
