New MicroG 'feature'

As far as I have understood the Corona service is was implemented in the least privacy invasive way which is technically possible. No identifiable personal information is shared with anyone. If there is any reason to use microg then it is for this sake: using the available technology to support the fight against covid without compromising your privacy.
Think about the alternative: e.g. leaving your contact data at restaurants in case a guest turns out to be infected? There is no better way better privacy and user friendly way to keep track of your inter-human contacts.
Integrating this service to /e/ ist highly appreciated.
That is my take on this.


Sorry no. It’s against privacy and eOS will stay for privacy. As soon as such a tracking api is available it will used by the executive (cops). Same as they are using today the guest lists from restaurants.

  • /e/ must implement this feature!
  • /e/ must NOT implement this feature!

0 voters

Why shouldn’t those who want /e/ but without MicroG be allowed to have it that way ?

Then please explain the difference between this particular feature of microG and all the other features of a standard phone in general and microG in particular. You are always complaining about compromisation of privacy, but as far as I have noticed, you never explained how it should get compromised by an API which for itself doesn’t do anything, can be switched off and needs an App to work which you can choose to install or not. The implementation by microG would be transparent as it is open source. So why should you trust this feature more or less than any other feature of microG or the whole OS?
There is so many data that is generated by the phone in other ways: which cell you are logged in, who you talk to, when, for how long, … In some countries it might be legal for the government to access this data, in others it might be illegal, but I guess that if this data is valuable for the law enforcement agencies, in most countries they will get it in one way or the other. I can’t see which additional data the new feature generates which could be more valuable than the already existing meta data.

(And, by the way: In my point of view, a privacy-enabled feature (by design) like this one gives me back freedom instead of taking it away. The more people as possible use the App, the more the likelihood of a new lockdown gets reduced. That means, I would more likely be able to live a relatively normal life.)
I feel patronized by people who want to block inclusion of this feature without even being willing or able to explain technically in which way the implementation will compromise my privacy. At the moment the explanations and arguments are at the level of a conspiracy theory.


Sorry that I have started pls have a look at my other post here


/e/ team had choosen to implement microG and then to support the microG project, so…

I’m not sure what would be the value in having /e/ without microG. A trusted ROM with microG, signature spoofing and working a lot as a “normal” Android phone out of the box (play services, even cell/wifi position services from Mozilla) is something relatively unique and useful for many. If you don’t want anything extra just take the normal LineageOS and do the very few post-install tweaks documented in many places (change DNS, captive portal, maybe the WebView). It might seem some extra work but on the flip side there are many more devices supported and many with much newer Android versions.

I’m not sure about the poll above too, I voted but why both options are with “must”?

1 Like
  • Use the word must in a poll
  • NOT use the word must in a poll

0 voters

1 Like

Again your poll is incomplete, my point was why ALL options have “must”? Obviously there is no point in banning a word in a poll, the question is why it should be included in all options?

1 Like

Why not, I indeed don’t get your point.

You are basically asking if cereals should be either banned for breakfast or should be made mandatory. I don’t agree with either. The opposite of must isn’t “must not”, they are not just complementary options as it would seem at first sight, the not(must …) is actually “might or might not”.

1 Like

happy to see that I’m not alone with my rejection of this covid feature :slight_smile:


I know this other thread, but the argumentation there is as much lacking technical information and rationality as this one, so I guess it doesn’t matter where to post my question and opinion.

1 Like

This metaphore does not fit, because implementing this feature still gives you the choice to turn it off. Cereals mandatory on the table, but you get the choose to eat it or not.

There is nothing in the poll about turning it off or other consequences, both options are about forcing something, very specific. I don’t want to force /e/ developers to take out any microG feature and I don’t want to force /e/ developers to make any new feature.

1 Like

You are running out of topic, sorry.

I seem to observe a pattern, that you reply to most arguments with a “wrong topic” or “wrong post” sort of thing. Why would a discussion of the poll about this microG feature and its implementation, which ist litterally part of the thread title, be off topic? This really doesn’t further what I consider to be an otherwise interesting discussion.

As for the poll - this is a nice game, but of course not representative. I’d be interested in results from a poll that, i.e. is published via the newsletter along with a complete explanation on what it is about.

But my guess is, we’ll just have to wait and see what the /e/OS devs decide on this issue and to me this is completely okay.

1 Like

Because I have written several times before, that I have started this post to show, that MicroG is on the way to implement this ‘feature’ not for starting a new discussion about the the c-19 app. There is a long discussion post available.

And regarding the poll / off topic: The discussion was about the word NOT and that’s out off topic.

as I have written before: It was a technical discussion post NOT a covid-19 app post. If I would be able, I would close this thread, but I don’t have the rights for that.

My point is not to debate semantics but just that the poll doesn’t present all possible options and whatever result would be getting is tainted be it from people abstaining from voting or voting anyway and choosing the “least bad” option.