Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Flokinet launch Floki phone privacy based
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Flokinet launch Floki phone privacy based

I never expected to see a Hosting Provider like Flokinet to launch something like that.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/flokinet_introducing-the-new-floki-phone-a-graphene-activity-6976186107239522305-7Vh8

What you think about this? Good or bad? You should buy? Why and why not?

«1

Comments

  • MikeAMikeA Member, Host Rep

    Seems like a good product if you want to be anonymous/private.

    But also seems sus, based on government/tech spying on "secure" marketed devices.

  • MannDudeMannDude Member, Host Rep

    How is this better than just installing GrapheneOS myself? Can already buy SIM cards for different regions of the world as is.

    From a company that kicks you to the curb for COVID discussion that doesn't match that of their local health orgs and the WHO, I'm skeptical about this.

    It's less suspicious to buy a Pixel6 than it is to have a transaction logged somewhere that you bought an anonymous phone.

    Just my $0.02

  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    IncogPhone when?

    Thanked by 1WebProject
  • @MannDude said: How is this better than just installing GrapheneOS myself?

    It's not. Daniel Micay knows what he is doing, unlike other charlatans.

  • MannDudeMannDude Member, Host Rep

    @yoursunny said:
    IncogPhone when?

    Never.

    Thanked by 1luckypenguin
  • That "secret project" they talked to twitter?
    The target was people doesnt want mess up with fastboot and can't install Graphene by itself (even though WebUSB make it install so easily, and you only need unlock bootloader).
    But for GrapheneOS? I don't think regular joe want buy even know GrapheneOS itself

  • Seems like everybody is stealing and rebranding GrapheneOS to their own shady marketing
    schemes. The biggest one so far is CalyxOS which is a cherry picked ripoff without half of the
    actual features. But gullible users buy that.

    Thanked by 1MikeA
  • hyperblasthyperblast Member
    edited September 17

    never trust FlokiNet! (see @MannDudes post above)

    however, the german (from the pirate party) behind flokinet seems to be well connected in his leftist bubble and just copy this: https://shop.nitrokey.com/shop

  • Such product designed to cater to criminal entities. Sooner or later it will be compromissed and used against such entities by gov or rival gangs.

  • @LTniger said: Such product designed to cater to criminal entities. Sooner or later it will be compromissed and used against such entities by gov or rival gangs.

    So all privacy focused projects are designed for criminals in your opinion? Well, it's clearly not the case. Otherwise we are all criminals because our phones, drives and instant messages are encrypted. But this is not approved by GrapheneOS, so any unauthorized fork will likely create more issues than solving, so time will tell.
    So far I don't see why you need any Floki/Shmoki rather than just getting a recent Pixel and flashing GrapheneOS on your own. Otherwise it will be a shitshow like CalyxOS.

    Thanked by 1hyperblast
  • @LTniger said:
    Such product designed to cater to criminal entities. Sooner or later it will be compromissed and used against such entities by gov or rival gangs.

    Sure. Knives are invented only to murder people and houses have walls to prevent cops from seeing the criminal activities inside.

  • @hyperblast said:
    Never trust FlokiNet!

    @luckypenguin said:

    @LTniger said: Such product designed to cater to criminal entities. Sooner or later it will be compromissed and used against such entities by gov or rival gangs.

    So all privacy focused projects are designed for criminals in your opinion? Well, it's clearly not the case. Otherwise we are all criminals because our phones, drives and instant messages are encrypted. But this is not approved by GrapheneOS, so any unauthorized fork will likely create more issues than solving, so time will tell.
    So far I don't see why you need any Floki/Shmoki rather than just getting a recent Pixel and flashing GrapheneOS on your own. Otherwise it will be a shitshow like CalyxOS.

    well... nitrokey removes microphones, camera and other sensors... for 300 €

  • @luckypenguin said: Well, it's clearly not the case.

    Either I don't get flokki's product or you just imagine wrong intentions on their side. So called "privacy focused" phones are pre-installed with apps designed for stealth communications. Such communications most of the time going between criminals. Why one should buy "privacy phone" for 1000+ EUR and with Romania number? Standard Joe will buy iPhone and that's it.

    I can't find article, (krebsonsecurity.com I believe), where entire fckin private cellular network was created and used solely by criminals. Phones, cell towers, SIM cards etc.

    In Flokki case, yes, this can be treated as a hobby. Iceland is no more that "total e-freedom" land.

    Thanked by 1kkrajk
  • Can I speak about vaccines thru their "privacy focused" pro "free speech" phone or its disallowed >:)

    Thanked by 2hyperblast MannDude
  • @luckypenguin said:
    Seems like everybody is stealing and rebranding GrapheneOS to their own shady marketing
    schemes. The biggest one so far is CalyxOS which is a cherry picked ripoff without half of the
    actual features. But gullible users buy that.

    I don't agree that is Shady marketing.

    if you say that, then we can consider that the marketing of Apple and Microsoft and other brands like Samsung are also "shady marketing".

    I think this is a ready-made mobile phone for those who don't know how to configure anything, I don't think it's a "shady marketing" in my opinion.

  • hyperblasthyperblast Member
    edited September 17

    @borowsky said:
    Can I speak about vaccines thru their "privacy focused" pro "free speech" phone or its disallowed >:)

    ask @FlokiNET

  • jarjar Member, Patron Provider
    edited September 17

    If we had censored misinformation in January of 2020, it would have been to censor everyone who warned of upcoming lockdown protocols and a global pandemic. You know, the things the television told us were crazy but then declared indisputable fact two months later. Imagine how foolish the censor would have looked by March. I had friends and family call me a crazy conspiracy theorist for buying them masks in February, and they all just pretended it didn't happen 2 months later, acted like it was all their idea as soon as the TV told them the same thing.

    That's why I don't trust @FlokiNET , I have to assume that they would have actively censored everyone who wore a mask in January of 2020 because those people were spreading "disinformation" about a virus. Would they have censored me if I put up a page encouraging social distancing and mask wearing? Because I have to assume they would have.

    You don't have to be the "vaccine causes 5g" nut to appreciate that a developing situation is going to see a continual shift in the accepted facts, but you do have to be a little evil to do your part to prevent the discussion of the developing situation among a scared and confused population. It shouldn't be a hosting provider's business really, and I get that it's their network, it's just ironic to see something like this alongside it.

    Do what you want with your network but don't try to sell me privacy when you have an unusual concern for otherwise legal subject matter.

  • Never trust FlokiNET with your data

    Thanked by 2hyperblast dystopia
  • @Moofie said:
    Never trust FlokiNET with your data

    Why? Can you tell us and explain?

    Thanked by 1Lunar
  • @sandoz said:

    @Moofie said:
    Never trust FlokiNET with your data

    Why? Can you tell us and explain?

    Read the replies to your post

  • FlokiNET Secure Phone 6a: €699.00

  • @Moofie said:

    @sandoz said:

    @Moofie said:
    Never trust FlokiNET with your data

    Why? Can you tell us and explain?

    Read the replies to your post

    I noticed, but I thought you had something different or different information from the existing one... that's why I asked.

    @jar said:
    If we had censored misinformation in January of 2020, it would have been to censor everyone who warned of upcoming lockdown protocols and a global pandemic. You know, the things the television told us were crazy but then declared indisputable fact two months later. Imagine how foolish the censor would have looked by March. I had friends and family call me a crazy conspiracy theorist for buying them masks in February, and they all just pretended it didn't happen 2 months later, acted like it was all their idea as soon as the TV told them the same thing.

    That's why I don't trust @FlokiNET , I have to assume that they would have actively censored everyone who wore a mask in January of 2020 because those people were spreading "disinformation" about a virus. Would they have censored me if I put up a page encouraging social distancing and mask wearing? Because I have to assume they would have.

    You don't have to be the "vaccine causes 5g" nut to appreciate that a developing situation is going to see a continual shift in the accepted facts, but you do have to be a little evil to do your part to prevent the discussion of the developing situation among a scared and confused population. It shouldn't be a hosting provider's business really, and I get that it's their network, it's just ironic to see something like this alongside it.

    Do what you want with your network but don't try to sell me privacy when you have an unusual concern for otherwise legal subject matter.

    I am totally against this vaccination rule is completely silly and useless for anyone who defends freedom of expression like Flokinet.

  • A call communication can not be private, unless there is the same encryption app or protocol doing the same encryption/decryption on both ends. That way we may say governments do not listen to your call or messages in transit, because they're encrypted. Society needs some open-source standard for encryption of calls and SMS, so that we may use different phones or apps for calls, but with same secured and open-source protocol globally adopted for encryption. Problem is: governments and corporations are watching the market too, everyone wanting a slice of population control.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • @Moofie said:

    @sandoz said:

    @Moofie said:
    Never trust FlokiNET with your data

    Why? Can you tell us and explain?

    Read the replies to your post

    None of the replies explain exactly why, just "look AUP bad."

  • hyperblasthyperblast Member
    edited September 18

    @Lunar said:

    @Moofie said:

    @sandoz said:

    @Moofie said:
    Never trust FlokiNET with your data

    Why? Can you tell us and explain?

    Read the replies to your post

    None of the replies explain exactly why, just "look AUP bad."

    well, you seem to trust flokinet. then continue to do so. the fact is that flokinet is pursuing a political agenda and therefore they are no longer a trustworthy provider. especially this note "Disinformation/falsehood regarding COVID-19 (Masks, Vaccines, Social Distancing, etc.)" (*) is the final proof that flokinet are hypocrites and political stooges of dubious political currents.

    (*)"The determination to suspend and remove any platform hosting/spreading Disinformation/falsehood regarding COVID-19 is based on the enormously extensive documentation provided by the European Union (Council, Parliament and Committees) including Romania/Finland and the Icelandic Government, which are in alignment with the UN and World Health Organization. If you missuse our network your service and account get immidiate suspended without any warning and refund."

    In this way, flokinet places itself under the umbrella of the aforementioned institutions. some of these institutions, although they give off a supposedly very official character to the outside world, are undemocratic and radical on the inside.

    but all this is not surprising, because the head behind flokinet is a german who is/was a member of the pirate party. the pirate party is basically a computer freak party which likes to flirt with the radical left and green spectrum.

  • further proof that floki is not neutral in making policy. flokinet is clearly taking a political position for the pro-abortion movement in the usa.

    https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media/FWQ1NPdWYAANT8I.jpg

  • jarjar Member, Patron Provider
    edited September 18

    @Lunar said:

    @Moofie said:

    @sandoz said:

    @Moofie said:
    Never trust FlokiNET with your data

    Why? Can you tell us and explain?

    Read the replies to your post

    None of the replies explain exactly why, just "look AUP bad."

    I mean, if you can stare at a concern for a clearly stated agenda of censorship on a clearly stated topic and declare it to be entirely without content so as to almost be empty of words, I'm not sure any explanation could ever qualify as anything greater than pure silence. It's kind of like walking into a room, listening to everyone talk, and then saying "Why can no one in here produce a sound?" Either it means you should clean your ears or you're just announcing that you don't want to hear it. Which is fine, I just found it an odd way to say it.

    None of it is a problem, everyone is free to choose their course. This product offering just feels tone deaf in relation to their choices. It just seems to be a bad combination for the mental associations several of us have with a privacy marketed product, and I can see how someone else might not reach the same conclusion. Most especially if they don't have the same mental associations. Everyone gets to have an opinion.

    Thanked by 1hyperblast
  • @hyperblast said:
    further proof that floki is not neutral in making policy. flokinet is clearly taking a political position for the pro-abortion movement in the usa.

    https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media/FWQ1NPdWYAANT8I.jpg

    I want to say it's just marketing as with the massive corporations that roll that way, but they're small enough to drink their own kool-aid and I don't think you can promote freedom and privacy when the freedom is not absolute.

    Thanked by 1hyperblast
  • @hyperblast said:
    further proof that floki is not neutral in making policy. flokinet is clearly taking a political position for the pro-abortion movement in the usa.

    https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media/FWQ1NPdWYAANT8I.jpg

    I'm totally neutral, but where is the source of this? anyone can take the logo and paste it there. I understand that it can be true, but it can also be a revenge move, in the world we live in, there are those who like to make bad publicity, like the case of @Francisco, it's always good to clarify and have everything right. In the images I see the logo yes it is true. But who can guarantee that it was them? If you have it on the website or somewhere else that proves it's true, then it would be more credible.

    Note: I am neutral, do not trust or trust. I'm just watching and reading.

  • hyperblasthyperblast Member
    edited September 18

    source: https://nitter.net/FlokiNETehf/status/1541415648596824065#m

    you are right, i should have given the source at the same time.

    My point is not what flokinet supports in detail, but rather that flokinet is a political provider that should not be trusted.

    here is the twitter account of the flokinet ceo: https://nitter.net/frelsisbaratta
    if you work your way through it, it is clear where the ceo and flokinet are located. flokinet fantasizes in the best 1984-like-newspeak art of freedom, data security, encryption, freedom of speech and human rights but all under a political mindset (whether good or bad is up to you; but it should be clear, who flokinet and its ceo mindset does not fit, who will have to reckon with sanctions).

Sign In or Register to comment.